Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):102-103
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):102-103
, Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):104-115
, Diabetes during pregnancy has been linked to unfavorable maternal-fetal outcomes. Human insulins are the first drug of choice because of the proven safety in their use. However, there are still questions about the use of insulin analogs during pregnancy. The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of insulin analogs compared withhuman insulin in the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes througha systematic review withmeta-analysis. The search comprised the period since the inception of each database until July 2017, and the following databases were used:MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISIWeb of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE andGoogle Scholar.We have selected 29 original articles: 11 were randomized clinical trials and 18 were observational studies.We have explored data from 6,382 participants. All of the articles were classified as having an intermediate to high risk of bias. The variable that showed favorable results for the use of insulin analogs was gestational age, with a mean difference of - 0.26 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity (Higgins test [I2] = 38%; chi-squared test [χ2] = 16.24; degree of freedom [DF] = 10; p = 0.09). This result, in the clinical practice, does not compromise the fetal well-being, since all babies were born at term. There was publication bias in the gestational age and neonatal weight variables. To date, the evidence analyzed has a moderate-to-high risk of bias and does not allow the conclusion that insulin analogs are more effective when compared with human insulin to treat diabetic pregnant women.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):104-115
, Diabetes during pregnancy has been linked to unfavorable maternal-fetal outcomes. Human insulins are the first drug of choice because of the proven safety in their use. However, there are still questions about the use of insulin analogs during pregnancy. The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of insulin analogs compared withhuman insulin in the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes througha systematic review withmeta-analysis. The search comprised the period since the inception of each database until July 2017, and the following databases were used:MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISIWeb of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE andGoogle Scholar.We have selected 29 original articles: 11 were randomized clinical trials and 18 were observational studies.We have explored data from 6,382 participants. All of the articles were classified as having an intermediate to high risk of bias. The variable that showed favorable results for the use of insulin analogs was gestational age, with a mean difference of - 0.26 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity (Higgins test [I2] = 38%; chi-squared test [χ2] = 16.24; degree of freedom [DF] = 10; p = 0.09). This result, in the clinical practice, does not compromise the fetal well-being, since all babies were born at term. There was publication bias in the gestational age and neonatal weight variables. To date, the evidence analyzed has a moderate-to-high risk of bias and does not allow the conclusion that insulin analogs are more effective when compared with human insulin to treat diabetic pregnant women.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):116-123
To evaluate if performing anti-incontinence procedures during surgical anterior and/or apical prolapse correction in women with asymptomatic urinary incontinence (UI) may prevent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) postoperatively.
We have performed a systematic review of articles published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases until March 31, 2016. Two reviewers performed the data collection and analysis, independently. All of the selected studiesweremethodologically analyzed. The results are presented as relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
After performing the selection of the studies, only nine trials fulfilled the necessary prerequisites. In the present review, 1,146 patients were included. Altogether, the review included trials of three different types of anti-incontinence procedures. We found that performing any anti-incontinence procedure at the same time of prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively (RR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91). However, when we performed the analysis separately by the type of anti-incontinence procedure, we found different results. In the subgroup analysis with midurethral slings, it is beneficial to perform it to reduce the incidence of SUI (RR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.28). On the other hand, in the subgroup analysis with Burch colposuspension, there was no significant difference with the control group (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.28-7.79]).
Performing any prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the same time as prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively. The Burch colposuspension did not show any decrease in the incidence of SUI postoperatively.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):116-123
To evaluate if performing anti-incontinence procedures during surgical anterior and/or apical prolapse correction in women with asymptomatic urinary incontinence (UI) may prevent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) postoperatively.
We have performed a systematic review of articles published in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases until March 31, 2016. Two reviewers performed the data collection and analysis, independently. All of the selected studiesweremethodologically analyzed. The results are presented as relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
After performing the selection of the studies, only nine trials fulfilled the necessary prerequisites. In the present review, 1,146 patients were included. Altogether, the review included trials of three different types of anti-incontinence procedures. We found that performing any anti-incontinence procedure at the same time of prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively (RR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91). However, when we performed the analysis separately by the type of anti-incontinence procedure, we found different results. In the subgroup analysis with midurethral slings, it is beneficial to perform it to reduce the incidence of SUI (RR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.28). On the other hand, in the subgroup analysis with Burch colposuspension, there was no significant difference with the control group (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.28-7.79]).
Performing any prophylactic anti-incontinence procedure at the same time as prolapse repair reduced the incidence of SUI postoperatively. The Burch colposuspension did not show any decrease in the incidence of SUI postoperatively.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):124-128
Müllerian adenosarcoma is a very rare gynecological disease, comprising 5% of uterine sarcomas. Extragenital localizations are even rarer.We report a very interesting case of a 27-year-old woman complaining of pelvic pain, with a subsequent diagnosis of extragenital Müllerian adenosarcoma. This is the first case reported in the literature with a complete and wide imaging description. Even if rare, Müllerian adenosarcoma should be hypothesized in case of young female patients presenting with suspicious pelvic mass.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):124-128
Müllerian adenosarcoma is a very rare gynecological disease, comprising 5% of uterine sarcomas. Extragenital localizations are even rarer.We report a very interesting case of a 27-year-old woman complaining of pelvic pain, with a subsequent diagnosis of extragenital Müllerian adenosarcoma. This is the first case reported in the literature with a complete and wide imaging description. Even if rare, Müllerian adenosarcoma should be hypothesized in case of young female patients presenting with suspicious pelvic mass.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):129-132
Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death during the first trimester, and it occurs in 1 to 2% of pregnancies. Over 90% of ectopic pregnancies are located in the fallopian tube. Abdominal pregnancy refers to an ectopic pregnancy that has implanted in the peritoneal cavity, external to the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes. The estimated incidence is 1 per 10,000 births and 1.4%of ectopic pregnancies. Lithopedion is a rare type of ectopic pregnancy, and it occurs when the fetus from an unrecognized abdominal pregnancymay die and calcify. The resulting “stone baby” may not be detected for decades andmay cause a variety of complications. Lithopedion is a very rare event that occurs in 0.0054% of all gestations. About 1.5 to 1.8% of the abdominal babies develop into lithopedion. There are only ~ 330 known cases of lithopedion in the world. We describe a lithopedion that complicated as intestinal obstruction in a 71-year-old woman.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):129-132
Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death during the first trimester, and it occurs in 1 to 2% of pregnancies. Over 90% of ectopic pregnancies are located in the fallopian tube. Abdominal pregnancy refers to an ectopic pregnancy that has implanted in the peritoneal cavity, external to the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes. The estimated incidence is 1 per 10,000 births and 1.4%of ectopic pregnancies. Lithopedion is a rare type of ectopic pregnancy, and it occurs when the fetus from an unrecognized abdominal pregnancymay die and calcify. The resulting “stone baby” may not be detected for decades andmay cause a variety of complications. Lithopedion is a very rare event that occurs in 0.0054% of all gestations. About 1.5 to 1.8% of the abdominal babies develop into lithopedion. There are only ~ 330 known cases of lithopedion in the world. We describe a lithopedion that complicated as intestinal obstruction in a 71-year-old woman.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):133-134
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):133-134
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):135-136
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):135-136
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):67-67
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(2):67-67