EULAR Recommendations for Women's Health and the Management of Family Planning, Assisted Reproduction, Pregnancy and Menopause in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and/or Antiphospholipid Syndrome

OBJECTIVES: Develop recommendations for women's health issues and family planning in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). METHODS: Systematic review of evidence followed by modified Delphi method to compile questions, elicit expert opinions and reach consensus. RESULTS: Family planning should be discussed as early as possible after diagnosis. Most women can have successful pregnancies and measures can be taken to reduce the risks of adverse maternal or fetal outcomes. Risk stratification includes disease activity, autoantibody profile, previous vascular and pregnancy morbidity, hypertension and the use of drugs (emphasis on benefits from hydroxychloroquine and antiplatelets/anticoagulants). Hormonal contraception and menopause replacement therapy can be used in patients with stable/inactive disease and low risk of thrombosis. Fertility preservation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues should be considered prior to the use of alkylating agents. Assisted reproduction techniques can be safely used in patients with stable/inactive disease; patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies/APS should receive anticoagulation and/or low-dose aspirin. Assessment of disease activity, renal function and serological markers is important for diagnosing disease flares and monitoring for obstetrical adverse outcomes. Fetal monitoring includes Doppler ultrasonography and fetal biometry, particularly in the third trimester, to screen for placental insufficiency and small for gestational age fetuses. Screening for gynaecological malignancies is similar to the general population, with increased vigilance for cervical premalignant lesions if exposed to immunosuppressive drugs. Human papillomavirus immunisation can be used in women with stable/inactive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for women's health issues in SLE and/or APS were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus.

Two Gestational Sacs, Two Locations - Heterotopic Pregnancy - Case Report

Introduction: Heterotopic pregnancy (HP) is defined as two gestational sacs simultaneously present in two different locations, being the uterus and the fallopian tubes the more common. Sporadic HP is a very rare condition (1:30,000 pregnancies). With the use of medically assisted reproduction the prevalence is significantly higher(1:7,000). Considering spontaneous pregnancy, HP is associated with risk factors, being prior inflammatory pelvic disease the most common. The clinical presentation is similar to that of ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous miscarriage although it is usually a more late diagnosis. Case report: 25 year-old pregnant woman, OI 0000, previously healthy; admitted at the Emergency Department (ED) with acute pelvic pain mainly at the right iliac fossa and moderate vaginal bleeding confirmed by speculum examination. She was hemodynamically stable and the bimanual palpation was painful; no prior medically assisted reproduction technique had been performed. The haemoglobin value was within normal range and the serum β-hCG was 2,763mUI/mL. The ultrasonography at the ED showed an in uterus gestational sac and another one inside the right fallopian tube; in both gestational sacs cardiac activity was absent. HP diagnosis was then established and the patient was admitted at the Obstetrics Ward for surveillance and ultrasonographic/laboratorial reassessment; complete miscarriage of the uterine pregnancy occurred but methotrexate was necessary for the treatment of persistent tubarian pregnancy. Conclusion: When evaluating a pregnant woman with pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding one should always be aware of several differential diagnosis amongst which HP should be considered. If the patient has in uterus viable pregnancy the treatment of the ectopic concomitant gestational sac should be as conservative as possible; methotrexate should not be used in that situation as it leads to uterine pregnancy miscarriage in about one third of the patients.

Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy

Introduction: Hysterectomy is the commonest gynecologic operation, performed for malignant and benign conditions. There are many approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease. Studies comparing the techniques have showed that vaginal hysterectomy has benefits in terms of reduced hospital stay, faster recovery and less operating time. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the surgical and immediate postoperative outcomes of Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH) with those of Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH). Methods: Retrospective descriptive study, comparing two groups of women who underwent LAVH or VH in our department during a 24 months period, from January 2009 to December 2010. The two groups were compared regarding age, vaginal deliveries, previous abdominal surgery, uterine and adnexal pathology, intra-operative and post-operative complications, uterus weight, blood loss and number of days until discharge. Results: In our study 42 LAVH and 99 VH were included, with a patient mean age of 47 and 59, respectively. The most frequent indication for hysterectomy was fibroids (80%) for LAVH and POP(58.6%) for HV. In LAVH group 47.6% of patients had previous abdominal surgery, vs 28.2% in VH group. The medium operative time was 167 minutes for LAVH vs 99 minutes for HV. The intra-operative complications were one case (2%) of accidental incision of rectum in LAVH, and one bladder incision in the VH (1%). There were 3 conversions to laparotomy for difficult technique (7%) in LAVH group. There were no significant post-operative complications for LAVH. In VH group there were 2 cases of haemoperitoneum (2%) and 1 case requiring blood transfusion (1%). The mean time for discharge was 4.23 days for LAVH and 4.46 days for VH. Conclusions: In our study, the main advantage for VH was the reduced operative time. In terms of time to discharge there was no difference between the 2 groups. The main intra-operative complication of LAVH was the risk of conversion to laparotomy, but post-operatively this procedure had fewer complications than VH. In conclusion, LAVH is a safe option for women requiring hysterectomy in cases where VH is anticipated to be technically difficult.