Diagnosis · Diagnostic Delay
Maroun P et al., 2009 · The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology
Endometriosis commonly presents with a range of symptoms none of which are particularly specific for the condition, often resulting in misdiagnosis or delay in diagnosis. To investigate gastrointestinal symptoms in women with endometriosis and compare their frequency with that of the classical gynaecological symptoms. Systematic exploration of symptoms in a consecutive series of 355 women undergoing operative laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis. Endometriosis was confirmed by histology in 290 women (84.5%). Bowel lesions were present in only 7.6%. Ninety per cent of women had gastrointestinal symptoms, of which bloating was the most common (82.8%), but 71.3% also had other bowel symptoms. All gastrointestinal symptoms were similarly predictive of histologically confirmed endometriosis. Seventy-six women (21.4%) had previously been diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and 79% of them had endometriosis confirmed. Gastrointestinal symptoms are nearly as common as gynaecological symptoms in women with endometriosis and do not necessarily reflect bowel involvement.
Cervical Conditions · Cervical Insufficiency
MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage, 1993 · Br J Obstet Gynaecol
To assess whether cervical cerclage in women deemed to be at increased risk of cervical incompetence prolongs pregnancy and thereby improves fetal and neonatal outcome. Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Hospitals in the United Kingdom, France, Hungary, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Canada. One thousand two hundred and ninety-two pregnant women whose obstetricians were uncertain whether to recommend cervical cerclage, most of whom had a history of early delivery or cervical surgery. Cervical cerclage was compared with a policy of withholding the operation unless it was considered to be clearly indicated. Delivery before 33 completed weeks, preterm delivery (< 37 weeks), and vital status of the baby after completion of the pregnancy. The overall preterm delivery rate was 28%. There were fewer deliveries before 33 weeks in the cerclage group (83 (13%) compared with 110 (17%), P = 0.03) and this difference reflected deliveries characterised by features of cervical incompetence (painless cervical dilatation and prelabour rupture of the membranes). There was a corresponding difference in very low birthweight deliveries (63 (10%) compared with 86 (13%), P = 0.05). The difference in the overall rate of miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death (55 (9%) compared with 68 (11%)) was less marked and was not statistically significant. The use of cervical cerclage was associated with increased medical intervention and a doubling of the risk of puerperal pyrexia. These results suggest that the operation had an important beneficial effect in 1 in 25 cases in the trial (95% confidence interval (CI) 1 in 12 to 1 in 300 sutures). Its use is associated with increased medical intervention and puerperal pyrexia. Nevertheless, this trial suggests that, on balance, cervical cerclage should be offered to women at high risk, such as those with a history of three or more pregnancies ending before 37 weeks gestation.
Preterm Birth · Progesterone Prophylaxis
Keirse MJ, 1990 · Br J Obstet Gynaecol
Two recently published meta-analyses of controlled trials of a wide variety of progestational agents, used in pregnancy (Daya 1989; Goldstein et al. 1989), prompted this third meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials involving the prophylactic use of a single agent, 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. Of seven relevant published reports of controlled trials, six had involved women considered to be a high risk of miscarriage or preterm birth. This analysis provides no support for the view that 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate protects against miscarriage, but suggests that it does reduce the occurrence of preterm birth. The latter effect was reflected in a reduced rate of low birthweight babies, but not in a statistically significant reduction in perinatal mortality and morbidity. The difference between this meta-analysis and the two earlier meta-analyses illustrates the problems both of selective sub-grouping and of comprehensive pooling of data from small trials.