Objective: We investigated the potential relationship between endometriosis and risk of ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and breast cancers using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Methods: We utilized the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) system to identify relevant codes from the NIS database (2016–2019). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses (adjusted for age, race, hospital region, hospital teaching status, income Zip score, smoking, alcohol use, and hormonal replacement therapy) were conducted to evaluate the association between endometriosis and gynecologic cancers and summarized as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In the examined dataset, there were 1164 and 225,323 gynecologic cancer patients with and without endometriosis, respectively. Univariate analysis showed endometriosis was significantly associated with a higher risk of ovarian (OR = 3.42, 95% CI: 3.05–3.84, p < 0.001) and endometrial (OR = 3.35, 95% CI: 2.97–3.79, p < 0.001) cancers. There was no significant association between endometriosis and cervical cancer (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85–1.28, p = 0.663). Interestingly, endometriosis was significantly associated with a low risk of breast cancer (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.10–0.17, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis after Bonferroni correction (p < 0.006) showed that endometriosis was significantly associated with a high risk of ovarian (adjusted OR = 3.34, 95% CI: 2.97–3.75, p < 0.001) and endometrial (adjusted OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 3.12–4.08, p < 0.001) cancers. Conversely, there was no significant association between endometriosis and cervical cancer (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65–0.99, p = 0.036). Conclusions: Patients with endometriosis exhibited unique gynecologic cancer risk profiles, with higher risks for ovarian and endometrial cancers, and no significant risk for cervical cancer. The observed connection between endometriosis and a reduced risk of breast cancer remains a perplexing phenomenon, which cannot be put into context to date.

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.

To determine whether surgeons at different levels and in different specialties are aware of the safe and acceptable use of electrosurgery. In addition, we aimed to provide a fundamental understanding of electrosurgery and surgical diathermy. A total of 83 doctors from different specialties were randomly selected from several hospitals across KSA. The participants answered a questionnaire featuring 16 questions that addressed 10 domain questions regarding the safe use of electrosurgery. Analysis revealed that the respondents either lacked knowledge or were unfamiliar with the use and safety of monopolar and bipolar electrosurgery in terms of application. Some respondents were unable to distinguish between the two protocols; this may have resulted in injuries being incurred by patients under their supervision. Electrosurgery should be formally included in specialty surgical Saudi hospital training programs to increase electrosurgery expertise and surgeons should be re-tested periodically. Our findings may be used to drive future learning. Surgeons may improve their electrosurgery skills by progressing along their learning curve to reach their peak. In addition, surgeons can use virtual reality surgical simulators to practice fundamental and sophisticated electrosurgery skills.