There is no significant correlation of adenomyosis with benign, premalignant and malignant gynecological pathologies. Retrospective study on 647 specimens

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify the prevalence of benign, premalignant and malignant gynecological pathologies in women with adenomyosis who underwent gynecological surgery. Material and methods: The medical records collected between 1985 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The pathology reports were studied from 647 cases where adenomyosis was presented. The estimated prevalence of benign, premalignant and malignant gynecological disorders in the general population was further evaluated. Results: The mean age of women with adenomyosis was 54.1 ± 10.4 years old. Out of 647 patients, in 18.5% of the specimens we detected isolated adenomyosis and in 81.5% of cases a coexistence of one or more gynecological diseases, while in 84 out of 647 patients (13%) there was coexistence of adenomyosis with more than one gynecological condition (benign or malignancy). Among all cases, uterine leiomyomas were observed in 61.3% of patients, followed by endometrial polyps (11.9%), endometriosis (11.6%), endometrial hyperplasia (7.1%), endometrial cancer (3.6%), ovarian (1.4%) and cervical cancer (0.8%) (p < 0.001).Additionally, we found that women with a simultaneous co-existence of adenomyosis, leiomyomas and endometrial polyps or hyperplasia were younger (p < 0.01) in comparison to cases with malignancy. Conclusions: Adenomyosis presents a common benign but often progressing myometrial condition that it is underestimated in clinical practice. Even though some studies suggest a potential association with several gynecological pathologies, we did not confirm a significant difference of adenomyosis prevalence between benign, premalignant and malignant gynecological conditions compared with the general population. Further investigation is required to confirm our results

Ampicillin/Sulbactam versus Cefuroxime as antimicrobial prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a randomized study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy and safety of a single dose of ampicillin/sulbactam compared to a single dose of cefuroxime at cord clamp for prevention of post-cesarean infectious morbidity has not been assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women scheduled for cesarean delivery were randomized to receive a single dose of either 3 g of ampicillin-sulbactam or 1.5 g of cefuroxime intravenously, after umbilical cord clamping. An evaluation for development of postoperative infections and risk factor analysis was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and seventy-six patients (median age 28 yrs, IQR: 24-32) were enrolled in the study during the period July 2004 - July 2005. Eighty-five (48.3%) received cefuroxime prophylaxis and 91 (51.7%) ampicillin/sulbactam. Postoperative infection developed in 5 of 86 (5.9%) patients that received cefuroxime compared to 8 of 91 (8.8%) patients that received ampicillin/sulbactam (p = 0.6). In univariate analyses 6 or more vaginal examinations prior to the operation (p = 0.004), membrane rupture for more than 6 hours (p = 0.08) and blood loss greater than 500 ml (p = 0.018) were associated with developing a postoperative surgical site infection (SSI). In logistic regression having 6 or more vaginal examinations was the most significant risk factor for a postoperative SSI (OR 6.8, 95% CI: 1.4-33.4, p = 0.019). Regular prenatal follow-up was associated with a protective effect (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.005-0.36, p = 0.004).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Ampicillin/sulbactam was as safe and effective as cefuroxime when administered for the prevention of infections following cesarean delivery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01138852</p

Keeping an Eye on Perimenopausal and Postmenopausal Endometriosis

Introduction: We aimed to describe and review the epidemiological aspect of the disease pattern of a series of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with a histology confirmation of endometriosis. Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the clinical records of 184 perimenopausal and 46 postmenopausal women with endometriosis. Data were collected and analyzed from 1100 patients’ charts with confirmed endometriosis and involved cases from two different geographical areas, New Haven (US) and Greece. The statistical methods included ×2 and the Mann-Whitney U test. In the perimenopausal group (age 45–54 years), there were 184 patients (16.7%) and the postmenopausal group (55–80 years) had 46 (4.2%). The average age of diagnosis was (49 ± 2.3) and (61.2 ± 5.1), respectively (p &lt; 0.01). Results: Advanced endometriosis was more aggressive in the perimenopausal group (p &lt; 0.05); in the same group, we observed a higher left-sided predisposition of endometriosis in comparison with the right side (p &lt; 0.01). Endometrioma was the most common gynecological condition among patients with perimenopausal endometriosis in relation to the postmenopausal group (p &lt; 0.001). Additionally, we found uterine leiomyomata more prominent in the perimenopausal group (p &lt; 0.05). In contrast, adenomyosis was found higher in postmenopausal patients (p &lt; 0.05); further, 24 cases with dry eye we observed. Conclusions: Postmenopausal endometriosis is an important underestimated condition. Although the reported situation is not common, various clinicopathological characteristics were observed in both groups. Clinicians should be aware that there is a correlation between endometriosis and endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer in perimenopausal and postmenopausal age.</jats:p

Keeping an Eye on Perimenopausal and Postmenopausal Endometriosis

Introduction: We aimed to describe and review the epidemiological aspect of the disease pattern of a series of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with a histology confirmation of endometriosis. Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the clinical records of 184 perimenopausal and 46 postmenopausal women with endometriosis. Data were collected and analyzed from 1100 patients&rsquo; charts with confirmed endometriosis and involved cases from two different geographical areas, New Haven (US) and Greece. The statistical methods included &times;2 and the Mann-Whitney U test. In the perimenopausal group (age 45&ndash;54 years), there were 184 patients (16.7%) and the postmenopausal group (55&ndash;80 years) had 46 (4.2%). The average age of diagnosis was (49 &plusmn; 2.3) and (61.2 &plusmn; 5.1), respectively (p &lt; 0.01). Results: Advanced endometriosis was more aggressive in the perimenopausal group (p &lt; 0.05); in the same group, we observed a higher left-sided predisposition of endometriosis in comparison with the right side (p &lt; 0.01). Endometrioma was the most common gynecological condition among patients with perimenopausal endometriosis in relation to the postmenopausal group (p &lt; 0.001). Additionally, we found uterine leiomyomata more prominent in the perimenopausal group (p &lt; 0.05). In contrast, adenomyosis was found higher in postmenopausal patients (p &lt; 0.05); further, 24 cases with dry eye we observed. Conclusions: Postmenopausal endometriosis is an important underestimated condition. Although the reported situation is not common, various clinicopathological characteristics were observed in both groups. Clinicians should be aware that there is a correlation between endometriosis and endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer in perimenopausal and postmenopausal age