Background and Objectives: Abdominal hysterectomy is a major surgery that is often associated with pronounced postsurgical pain. The objective of this research is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized comparative trials (NCTs) that have surveyed the analgesic benefits and morbidity of intraoperative superior hypogastric plexus (SHP) block (intervention) compared with no SHP block (control) during abdominal hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until 8 May 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the risk of bias of RCTs and NCTs, respectively. In a random effects mode, the data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Five studies (four RCTs and one NCT) comprising 210 patients (SHP block = 107 and control = 103) were analyzed. The overall postsurgical pain score (n = 5 studies, MD = −1.08, 95% CI [−1.41, −0.75], p < 0.001), postsurgical opioid consumption (n = 4 studies, MD = −18.90 morphine milligram equivalent, 95% CI, [−22.19, −15.61], p < 0.001), and mean time to mobilization (n = 2 studies, MD = −1.33 h, 95% CI [−1.98, −0.68], p < 0.001) were significantly decreased in the SHP block group contrasted with the control arm. Nevertheless, there was no significant variance between both arms regarding operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postsurgical NSAID consumption, and hospital stay. There were no major side effects or sympathetic block-related aftermaths in both groups. Conclusions: During abdominal hysterectomy and receiving perioperative multimodal analgesia, the administration of intraoperative SHP block is largely safe and exhibits better analgesic effects compared to cases without administration of SHP block.

Objective: This study offered an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed preoperative misoprostol compared to control (matched placebos or no treatment) during abdominal myomectomies. Methods: Six databases underwent screening until 7 April 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The results were presented as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Results: Sixteen RCTs were analyzed, involving 975 women. The overall quality of the studies was rated as “low” or had “some concerns” of bias in seven and eight RCTs, respectively; one RCT had an overall “high” risk of bias. For primary endpoints, the misoprostol intervention had significantly lower mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 15, MD = −180.2 mL, 95% CI [−224.04, −136.35], p < 0.001), mean hemoglobin drop (n = 13, MD = −0.58 g/dl, 95% CI [−0.82, −0.35], p < 0.001), and rate of perioperative blood transfusion (n = 13, RR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.29, 0.63], p < 0.001) compared to the control intervention. For secondary endpoints, the misoprostol intervention had significantly lower mean hematocrit drop (MD = 2.15, 95% CI −3.34, −0.96], p < 0.001), mean operative time (MD = −12.95 min, 95% CI [−19.89, −6.01], p < 0.001), and mean hospital stay (MD = −0.14 days, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.02], p = 0.02) compared to the control intervention. Nonetheless, no significant change was indicated between both interventions regarding the rate of postoperative fever. Conclusions: During abdominal myomectomy, the administration of preoperative misoprostol was generally safe and yielded statistically significant reductions in intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin drop, and perioperative blood transfusion.

Objective This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal–neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction. Study Design Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. Results Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed (n = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk n = 2, unclear risk n = 7, and high risk n = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality (n = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95–1.14, p = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93–1.17, p = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission. Conclusion During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal–neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal–neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events. Key Points

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have become a vital option for women facing fertility challenges. One of the potential interventions being explored is the use of sildenafil citrate (SC) to improve clinical outcomes in ART procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of SC on clinical outcomes in women undergoing ART. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search covered studies from inception until April 15, 2023, and identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for inclusion in the analysis. The endpoints were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). After meticulous analysis, twenty-eight RCTs comprising 3,426 women were included in the study. The results revealed significant findings regarding the impact of SC on clinical pregnancy (CP) rates. Women receiving SC demonstrated a significantly higher probability of CP compared to the control group (n=21 RCTs, RR=1.43; 95% CI: 1.29, 1.59). Additionally, when SC was combined with other medications like clomiphene citrate (CC) or estradiol valerate, it further improved the likelihood of CP compared to these medications alone (RR=1.35, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.53; RR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.22, respectively). Furthermore, the study observed that the mean endometrial thickness (ET) was significantly higher in women who received SC compared to the control group, which involved other active interventions or placebo (SMD=0.77, 95% CI: 0.20, 1.34). Particularly, the administration of SC resulted in a notably higher ET level compared to the placebo (SMD: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.15, 2.51). The findings suggest that luteal supplementation of SC can be considered a beneficial approach to enhance ET and improve the CP rate in women undergoing ART.