Minimally Invasive Treatment of Cesarean Scar and Cervical Pregnancies Using a Cervical Ripening Double Balloon Catheter: Expanding the Clinical Series

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 785-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Monteagudo ◽  
Giuseppe Calì ◽  
Andrei Rebarber ◽  
Marcos Cordoba ◽  
Nathan S. Fox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Clinical Series

A New Minimally Invasive Treatment for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Cervical Pregnancy

2017 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilan E. Timor-Tritsch ◽  
Ana Monteagudo ◽  
Terri-Ann Bennett ◽  
Christine Foley ◽  
Joanne Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cervical Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar

First‐trimester treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy using a cervical ripening—double‐balloon catheter: A case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 298-300
Author(s):  
Maria Donata Spazzini ◽  
Antonella Villa ◽  
Cristina Maffioletti ◽  
Federica Mariuzzo ◽  
Giuseppe Calì
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
First Trimester ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar ◽  
Double Balloon

scholarly journals A new minimally invasive treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy and cervical pregnancy

2016 ◽  
Vol 215 (3) ◽  
pp. 351.e1-351.e8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilan E. Timor-Tritsch ◽  
Ana Monteagudo ◽  
Terri-Ann Bennett ◽  
Christine Foley ◽  
Joanne Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Cesarean Scar Pregnancy ◽  
Cervical Pregnancy ◽  
Cesarean Scar

scholarly journals EAU, AUA and NICE Guidelines on Surgical and Minimally Invasive Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Critical Appraisal of the Guidelines Using the AGREE-II Tool

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Dmitry Enikeev ◽  
Vincent Misrai ◽  
Enrique Rijo ◽  
Roman Sukhanov ◽  
Denis Chinenov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Prostate Hyperplasia ◽  
Assessment Score ◽  
Nice Guideline ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To critically appraise the methodological rigour of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) vis-à-vis BPH surgery as used by specialist research associations in the US, Europe and UK, and to compare whether the guidelines cover all or only some of the available treatments. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The current guidelines issued by the EUA, AUA and NICE associations have been analyzed by 4 appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. We also compared the recommendations given in the guidelines for surgical and minimally invasive treatment to find out which of these CPGs include most of the available treatment options. <b><i>Results:</i></b> According to the AGREE II tool, the median scores of domains were: domain 1 scope and purpose 66.7%, domain 2 stakeholder involvement 50.0%, domain 3 rigor of development 65.1%, domain 4 clarity of presentation 80.6%, domain 5 applicability 33.3%, domain 6 editorial independence 72.9%. The overall assessment according to AGREE II is 83.3%. The NICE guideline scored highest on 5 out of 6 domains and the highest overall assessment score (91.6%). The EAU guideline scored lowest on 4 out of 6 domains and has the lowest overall assessment score (79.1%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The analyzed CPGs comprehensively highlight the minimally invasive and surgical treatment options for BPH. According to the AGREE II tool, the domains for clarity of presentation and editorial independence received the highest scores. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains were ranked as the lowest. Improving the CPG in these domains may help to improve the clinical utility and applicability of CPGs.

scholarly journals Induction of labour in mid-trimester pregnancy using double-balloon catheter placement within 12 h versus within 12–24 h

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Peng ◽  
Ruobing Li ◽  
Shuguo Du ◽  
Heng Yin ◽  
Min Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Cervical Dilation ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Trimester Pregnancy ◽  
Vaginal Deliveries

Abstract Background This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the induction of labour in mid-trimester pregnancy using a double-balloon catheter (DBC) within 12 h versus within 12–24 h. Methods In this retrospective study, a total of 58 pregnant women at 14 + 0 weeks to 27 + 6 weeks of gestation were enrolled as research subjects, and they underwent the intended termination of pregnancy at our birth centre from January 1, 2017, to June 31, 2019. Based on the duration of DBC, the patients were divided into two groups, namely, the DBC group within 12 h and the DBC group within 12–24 h. Results All 58 cases were successful vaginal deliveries, and no one chose to undergo caesarean section. The success rate of induction (successful abortion of the foetus and placenta without the implementation of dilation and evacuation) was higher in the DBC group within 12–24 h (96.3%, 29/31) than in the DBC group within 12 h (71.0%, 18/27) (p < 0.05). Additionally, the time from DBC removal to delivery in the DBC group within 12–24 h was significantly shorter than that in the DBC group within 12 h (3.0 h versus 17.8 h) (p < 0.05), and the degree of cervical dilation after DBC removal in the DBC group within 12–24 h was larger than that in the DBC group within 12 h (p < 0.05). Conclusion In the clinic, the placement time of DBC generally lasts for approximately 12 h. However, considering that the cervical condition is immature in the mid-trimester, properly extending the placement time of DBC to 24 h will benefit cervical ripening and reduce the chance of dilation and evacuation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document