The Rendez-vous technique for treatment of caesarean scar defects: a novel combined endoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND A caesarean scar defect is a late complication of caesarean birth with a wide range of prevalence between 56 and 84 % depending on which diagnostic tool and which definition is used [1]. The referred symptoms which include postmenstrual spotting and infertility are fortunately rare. Moreover, severe complications such as caesarean scar pregnancy and uterine rupture in the following pregnancy may occur. Given the increasing incidence of caesarean births, the potential morbidity associated with caesarean scars is likely to become more important. Recently, a few repair techniques were described in the literature including the hysteroscopic resection of scarred tissue or the laparoscopic repair with or without robotic assistance [2, 3]. METHODS Between June 2009 and February 2014, 21 women with caesarean scar defects were operated with the Rendez-vous technique, a minimally invasive surgery combining the laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach. Data were retrospectively collected. The indications for this surgery included secondary infertility, previous caesarean scar pregnancy, recurrent miscarriage and postmenstrual spotting. Prior to operation, a transvaginal ultrasound was performed to examine the uterine wall defect. RESULTS The patient characteristics are provided in Table 1. In all cases, the operation was successfully completed laparoscopically. The median operation time was 125 min. One case was complicated by recurrence of the scar defect 6 weeks after the operation. No other intra- or post-operative complications were observed, and the median in-patient stay was 3 days. CONCLUSIONS The benefits of the technique include the feasibility and safety of the procedure, the "Halloween sign" (Fig. 1) which indicates the exact extent and localization of the scar defect and the immediate assessment of repair through the hysteroscopy at the end of the surgery. However, before further studies evaluate the efficacy of this method, the routine repair of caesarean scar defects cannot be recommended. A video of the technique is presented.

A Single-blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial of How to Implement an Evidence-based Treatment for Generalized Anxiety Disorder [IMPLEMENT] — Effects of Three Different Strategies of Implementation

BACKGROUND: Despite long-standing calls to disseminate evidence-based treatments for generalized anxiety (GAD), modest progress has been made in the study of how such treatments should be implemented. The primary objective of this study was to test three competing strategies on how to implement a cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for out-patients with GAD (i.e., comparison of one compensation vs. two capitalization models). METHODS: For our three-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (implementation of CBT for GAD [IMPLEMENT]), we recruited adults with GAD using advertisements in high-circulation newspapers to participate in a 14-session cognitive behavioral treatment (Mastery of your Anxiety and Worry, MAW-packet). We randomly assigned eligible patients using a full randomization procedure (1:1:1) to three different conditions of implementation: adherence priming (compensation model), which had a systematized focus on patients' individual GAD symptoms and how to compensate for these symptoms within the MAW-packet, and resource priming and supportive resource priming (capitalization model), which had systematized focuses on patients' strengths and abilities and how these strengths can be capitalized within the same packet. In the intention-to-treat population an outcome composite of primary and secondary symptoms-related self-report questionnaires was analyzed based on a hierarchical linear growth model from intake to 6-month follow-up assessment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02039193) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: From June 2012 to Nov. 2014, from 411 participants that were screened, 57 eligible participants were recruited and randomly assigned to three conditions. Forty-nine patients (86%) provided outcome data at post-assessment (14% dropout rate). All three conditions showed a highly significant reduction of symptoms over time. However, compared with the adherence priming condition, both resource priming conditions indicated faster symptom reduction. The observer ratings of a sub-sample of recorded videos (n = 100) showed that the therapists in the resource priming conditions conducted more strength-oriented interventions in comparison with the adherence priming condition. No patients died or attempted suicide. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first trial that focuses on capitalization and compensation models during the implementation of one prescriptive treatment packet for GAD. We have shown that GAD related symptoms were significantly faster reduced by the resource priming conditions, although the limitations of our study included a well-educated population. If replicated, our results suggest that therapists who implement a mental health treatment for GAD might profit from a systematized focus on capitalization models. FUNDING: Swiss Science National Foundation (SNSF-Nr. PZ00P1_136937/1) awarded to CF. KEYWORDS: Cognitive behavioral therapy; Evidence-based treatment; Implementation strategies; Randomized controlled trial