The latest medical research on Obstetrics And Gynecology

Localized provoked vulvodynia (LPV) is a prevalent sexual health condition with significant negative impacts on quality of life. There is a lack of consensus regarding effective management.

We used Arksey and O'Malley's five-step method to identify, collate, and evaluate literature published between 2010 and 2023. The scoping review investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in the management of LPV. The aim of this paper is to map the literature on the efficacy or effectiveness of physical interventions.

The review produced 19 primary studies of physical interventions for LPV. These include acupuncture, laser therapy, physiotherapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-intensity shockwave therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation, and vestibulectomy.

Published studies that investigated a range of physical treatments for LPV showed some positive effects, except for transcranial direct-current stimulation. The remaining modalities demonstrated improved sexual pain and treatment satisfaction, when measured. Findings were mixed for non-sexual pain. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding other outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to conduct larger, high-quality studies that sample more diverse patient populations and use patient-oriented outcomes to assess effectiveness of physical modalities.

To identify which components of maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) pathology are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes and to investigate the morphological phenotypes of MVM placental pathology and their relationship with distinct clinical presentations of pre-eclampsia and/or fetal growth restriction (FGR).

Preterm delivery <34+0 weeks of gestation, early onset pre-eclampsia with delivery <34+0 weeks of gestation, birthweight <10th percentile (small for gestational age, SGA) and stillbirth.

The diagnostic features of MVM most strongly associated with delivery <34+0 weeks of gestation were: infarction, accelerated villous maturation, distal villous hypoplasia and decidual vasculopathy. Two dominant phenotypic clusters of MVM pathology were identified. The largest cluster (n = 104) was characterised by both reduced placental mass and hypoxic ischaemic injury (infarction and accelerated villous maturation), and was associated with combined pre-eclampsia and SGA. The second dominant cluster (n = 59) was characterised by infarction and accelerated villous maturation alone, and was associated with pre-eclampsia and average birthweight for gestational age.

Patients with placental MVM disease are at high risk of pre-eclampsia and FGR, and distinct pathological findings correlate with different clinical phenotypes, suggestive of distinct subtypes of MVM disease.

To assess whether, in those requiring continuing uterine stimulation after cervical ripening with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, augmentation with low-dose oral misoprostol is superior to intravenous oxytocin.

Caesarean birth.

A total of 520 women were randomised and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The caesarean section rate was not reduced with the use of misoprostol (misoprostol, 84/260, 32.3%, vs oxytocin, 71/260, 27.3%; aOR 1.23; 95% CI 0.81-1.85; P = 0.33). The interval from randomisation to birth was somewhat longer with misoprostol (225 min, 207-244 min, vs 194 min, 179-210 min; aOR 1.137; 95% CI 1.023-1.264; P = 0.017). There were no cases of hyperstimulation in either arm. The rates of fetal heart rate abnormalities and maternal side effects were similar. Fewer babies in the misoprostol arm were admitted to the special care unit (10 vs 21 in the oxytocin group; aOR 0.463; 95% CI 0.203-1.058; P = 0.068) and there were no neonatal deaths in the misoprostol group, compared with three neonatal deaths in the oxytocin arm. Women's acceptability ratings were high in both study groups.

Following cervical preparation with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, the use of continuing oral misoprostol for augmentation did not significantly reduce caesarean rates, compared with the use of oxytocin. There were no hyperstimulation or significant adverse events in either arm of the trial.