Jan Bosteels

Paris, 20 March 1811. Marie-Louise, Empress of the French, pregnant with her first child, falls into an exhausted sleep after a long night of painful contractions. Her husband, Emperor Napoleon, se...

Introduction: A myoma is the most common pelvic mass in the urogenital tract and can cause various symptoms. Myomectomy is sometimes performed as treatment. A myomectomy prior to pregnancy can cause some risks or complications. The most feared complication is a uterine rupture, with an incidence of 0.60%–0.75% reported in the literature up to 2012. The aim of this study is to review recent literature on the risk of uterine rupture during labour following a myomectomy. Materials and Methods: To identify new insights, an extensive literature search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Articles published between 1 April 2013 and 31 October 2023 were included. The articles were screened for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers. A total of 31 articles were included. Results: A total of 13,381 pregnant women with a history of myomectomy were included. The estimated overall risk of uterine rupture during pregnancy and labour was 0.30% (40/13.381; 95% CI: 0.21–0.41). Th included studies did not provide sufficient data to determine the specific risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labour after myomectomy (TOLAM). The risk of uterine rupture was significantly higher ( p = 0.04) when the uterine cavity had been entered during the myomectomy (3/44 or 6.82%) compared to when it was not entered (4/336 or 1.19%) with an odds ratio of 6.07. The type of myomectomy (laparoscopic, open or robotic) did not significantly influence the risk. No consistent data were available to identify other potential risk factors. Conclusion: This systematic review found an incidence of uterine rupture during pregnancy and labour of 0.30% after a previous myomectomy. Entry into the uterine cavity during myomectomy appears to significantly increase the risk. Large, high‐quality prospective studies are needed to confirm this finding and to identify additional risk factors.

Background/Objectives: The diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis should be based on the best available evidence. Emphasising the risk of bias, the pyramid of evidence has the double-blind, randomised controlled trial and its meta-analyses on top. After the grading of all evidence by a group of experts, clinical guidelines are formulated using well-defined rules. Unfortunately, the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) on the management of endometriosis has been limited and, possibly, occasionally harmful. Methods: For this research, the inherent problems of diagnosis and treatment were discussed by a working group of endometriosis and EBM specialists, and the relevant literature was reviewed. Results: Most clinical decisions are multivariable, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot handle multivariability because adopting a factorial design would require prohibitively large cohorts and create randomization problems. Single-factor RCTs represent a simplification of the clinical reality. Heuristics and intuition are both important for training and decision-making in surgery; experience, Bayesian thinking, and learning from the past are seldom considered. Black swan events or severe complications and accidents are marginally discussed in EBM since trial evidence is limited for rare medical events. Conclusions: The limitations of EBM for managing endometriosis and the complementarity of multivariability, heuristics, Bayesian thinking, and experience should be recognized. Especially in surgery, the value of training and heuristics, as well as the importance of documenting the collective experience and of the prevention of complications, are fundamental. These additions to EBM and guidelines will be useful in changing the Wild West mentality of surgery resulting from the limited scope of EBM data because of the inherent multivariability, combined with the low number of similar interventions.

BackgroundHistory has paid little attention to the childbirth of Marie Louise, second wife to the Emperor Napoleon I. Most historians state that the obstetrician Antoine Dubois needed to use his forceps during a difficult breech delivery. As practicing obstetricians we aimed to reconstruct the likely course of events using a forensic approach.MethodsWe have consulted historical documents and key witness accounts as primary sources. We have followed the clinical guidance of the 1807 edition of 'l'Art des Accouchemens'. We have tested a new hypothesis of the possible course of the childbirth through a simulation using the Assisted Vaginal Birth Module PROMPT Flex CDE (R) as an obstetrical model and an authentic Levret forceps.DiscussionA transverse lie with hip presentation is the most plausible diagnosis of the foetal malposition that complicated the delivery of Marie Louise by Antoine Dubois. The long duration of the delivery of the entrapped foetal head and the insistence on the presence of his colleague Corvisart by Antoine Dubois can be explained through our hypothesis that the occiput of the entrapped foetal head was very likely in a transverse position. The seemingly impossible application of a forceps in this position, had already been described in the nineteenth century both in France and outside.ConclusionOur simulation confirmed the practicability of the application of the forceps as assumed by our hypothesis. Definitive proof that this scenario actually happened, cannot be given because there are no written first-hand accounts by Dubois on the delivery.

(1) Objective: We aimed to report an update of the systematic review and meta-analysis by Baekelandt et al. (2016). (2) Method: We followed PRISMA guidelines to perform this systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and additional sources and aimed to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies in human subjects that allowed direct comparison of vNOTES to laparoscopy. (3) Results: Our search yielded one RCT and five retrospective cohort trials. Pooled analysis of two subgroups showed that, compared to conventional laparoscopy, vNOTES is equally effective to successfully remove the uterus in individuals meeting the inclusion criteria. vNOTES had significantly lower values for operation time, length of stay and estimated blood loss. There was no significant difference in intra- and postoperative complications, readmission, pain scores at 24 h postoperative and change in hemoglobin (Hb) on day 1 postoperative.

The aim of the study was to assess the postpartum risk for glucose intolerance since the introduction of the ‘International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups’ (IADPSG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Studies published since 2010 were included, which evaluated the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and cardiovascular (CV) events in women with previous GDM compared to normal glucose tolerant women. We included forty-three studies, evaluating 4,923,571 pregnant women of which 5.8% (284,312) had a history of GDM. Five studies used IADPSG criteria (n = 6174 women, 1314 with GDM). The overall pooled relative risk (RR) for postpartum T2DM was 7.42 (95% CI: 5.99–9.19) and the RR for postpartum T2DM with IADPSG criteria was 6.45 (95% CI: 4.74–8.77) compared to the RR of 9.08 (95% CI: 6.96–11.85; p = 0.17) for postpartum T2DM based on other diagnostic criteria. The RR for postpartum IGT was 2.45 (95% CI: 1.92–3.13), independent of the criteria used. None of the available studies with IADPSG criteria evaluated the risk for CV events. Women with a history of GDM based on the IADPSG criteria have a similarly increased risk for postpartum glucose intolerance compared to GDM based on other diagnostic criteria. More studies with GDM based on the IADPSG criteria are needed to increase the quality of evidence concerning the long-term metabolic risk.

Background Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility. Objectives To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Search methods We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results Two studies met the inclusion criteria. 1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low‐quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison. 2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction. The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low‐quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI. Authors' conclusions Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low‐quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Observational evidence suggests a potential benefit with several anti-adhesion therapies in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy (e.g. insertion of an intrauterine device or balloon, hormonal treatment, barrier gels or human amniotic membrane grafting) for decreasing intrauterine adhesions (IUAs). To assess the effectiveness of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy, following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility. We searched the following databases from inception to June 2017: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO); MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL and other electronic sources of trials, including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, and we contacted experts in the field. We also searched reference lists of appropriate papers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-adhesion therapies versus placebo, no treatment or any other anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and IUAs present at second-look hysteroscopy, along with mean adhesion scores and severity of IUAs. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated quality of evidence using the GRADE method. The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel, indirectness and imprecision. We identified 16 RCTs comparing a device versus no treatment (two studies; 90 women), hormonal treatment versus no treatment or placebo (two studies; 136 women), device combined with hormonal treatment versus no treatment (one study; 20 women), barrier gel versus no treatment (five studies; 464 women), device with graft versus device without graft (three studies; 190 women), one type of device versus another device (one study; 201 women), gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics versus hormonal treatment with antibiotics (one study; 52 women) and device combined with gel versus device (one study; 120 women). The total number of participants was 1273, but data on 1133 women were available for analysis. Only two of 16 studies included 100% infertile women; in all other studies, the proportion was variable or unknown. No study reported live birth, but some (five studies) reported outcomes that were used as surrogate outcomes for live birth (term delivery or ongoing pregnancy). Anti-adhesion therapy versus placebo or no treatment following operative hysteroscopy. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the use of a device or hormonal treatment compared to no treatment or placebo with respect to term delivery or ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 2.12; 107 women; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very-low-quality evidence). There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without hormonal treatment or hormonal treatment or barrier gels compared with no treatment or placebo (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; 560 women; 8 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 9 (95% CI 5 to 17). Comparisons of different anti-adhesion therapies following operative hysteroscopy It was unclear whether there was a difference between the use of a device combined with graft versus device only for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.83; 180 women; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There were fewer IUAs at second-look hysteroscopy using a device with or without graft/gel or gel combined with hormonal treatment and antibiotics compared with using a device only or hormonal treatment combined with antibiotics, but the findings of this meta-analysis were affected by evidence quality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83; 451 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Implications for clinical practice The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The effectiveness of anti-adhesion treatment for improving key reproductive outcomes or for decreasing IUAs following operative hysteroscopy in subfertile women remains uncertain. Implications for research More research is needed to assess the comparative safety and (cost-)effectiveness of different anti-adhesion treatments compared to no treatment or other interventions for improving key reproductive outcomes in subfertile women.