OBG Management

According to its January 2015 Committee Opinion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supported the following recommendations and conclusions regarding salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention¹:

• The surgeon and patient should discuss the potential benefits of the removal of the fallopian tubes during a hysterectomy in women at population risk of ovarian cancer who are not having an oophorectomy.
• When counseling women about laparoscopic sterilization methods, clinicians can communicate that bilateral salpingectomy can be considered a method that provides effective contraception.
• Prophylactic salpingectomy may offer clinicians the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancer in their patients.
• Randomized controlled trials are needed to support the validity of this approach to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer.

To determine the change in rate of salpingectomy performed at benign hysterectomy at Michigan hospitals, Sara Till, MD, MPH, and colleagues from the University of Michigan Health System performed a retrospective cross-sectioned study of data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. They examined hysterectomies performed for all surgical routes between January 2013 and April 2015. Exclusion criteria included malignancy and obstetric indication. The primary objective was to measure salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation. Measures studied included demographics; comorbidities; perioperative and postoperative results; and hospital/surgeon-related data; including surgeon volume, hospital type (ie, teaching), and hospital size.²

During the study period (January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2015), 18,642 hysterectomies were performed for benign indications, of which 55.7% (n = 10,382) were ovarian conserving. Among patients who underwent ovarian conserving hysterectomy, 44.9% (n = 4,668) had salpingectomy, with rates increasing steadily from 26.4% to 61.1% across the study period (P<.001). Salpingectomy was more likely with a laparoscopic approach (odds ratio [OR], 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69–3.20) and among women aged <60 years (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.42–1.98), but did not vary with surgeon volume. After adjustments for age, body mass index, and surgical approach using a mixed model, the researchers found substantial variation in rates of salpingectomy across hospital sites, ranging from 3.7% to 88.3%. Variation in adjusted salpingectomy rates was not associated with academic affiliation or hospital size.²

Dr. Till and colleagues concluded that there was a substantial rise in risk-reducing salpingectomy from January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2015, and that there is substantial variation in the practice of salpingectomy, which is not accounted for by patient, surgeon, or hospital characteristics.²

According to its January 2015 Committee Opinion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supported the following recommendations and conclusions regarding salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention¹:

• The surgeon and patient should discuss the potential benefits of the removal of the fallopian tubes during a hysterectomy in women at population risk of ovarian cancer who are not having an oophorectomy.
• When counseling women about laparoscopic sterilization methods, clinicians can communicate that bilateral salpingectomy can be considered a method that provides effective contraception.
• Prophylactic salpingectomy may offer clinicians the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancer in their patients.
• Randomized controlled trials are needed to support the validity of this approach to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer.

To determine the change in rate of salpingectomy performed at benign hysterectomy at Michigan hospitals, Sara Till, MD, MPH, and colleagues from the University of Michigan Health System performed a retrospective cross-sectioned study of data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. They examined hysterectomies performed for all surgical routes between January 2013 and April 2015. Exclusion criteria included malignancy and obstetric indication. The primary objective was to measure salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation. Measures studied included demographics; comorbidities; perioperative and postoperative results; and hospital/surgeon-related data; including surgeon volume, hospital type (ie, teaching), and hospital size.²

During the study period (January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2015), 18,642 hysterectomies were performed for benign indications, of which 55.7% (n = 10,382) were ovarian conserving. Among patients who underwent ovarian conserving hysterectomy, 44.9% (n = 4,668) had salpingectomy, with rates increasing steadily from 26.4% to 61.1% across the study period (P<.001). Salpingectomy was more likely with a laparoscopic approach (odds ratio [OR], 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69–3.20) and among women aged <60 years (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.42–1.98), but did not vary with surgeon volume. After adjustments for age, body mass index, and surgical approach using a mixed model, the researchers found substantial variation in rates of salpingectomy across hospital sites, ranging from 3.7% to 88.3%. Variation in adjusted salpingectomy rates was not associated with academic affiliation or hospital size.²

Dr. Till and colleagues concluded that there was a substantial rise in risk-reducing salpingectomy from January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2015, and that there is substantial variation in the practice of salpingectomy, which is not accounted for by patient, surgeon, or hospital characteristics.²

According to its January 2015 Committee Opinion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supported the following recommendations and conclusions regarding salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention¹:

• The surgeon and patient should discuss the potential benefits of the removal of the fallopian tubes during a hysterectomy in women at population risk of ovarian cancer who are not having an oophorectomy.
• When counseling women about laparoscopic sterilization methods, clinicians can communicate that bilateral salpingectomy can be considered a method that provides effective contraception.
• Prophylactic salpingectomy may offer clinicians the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancer in their patients.
• Randomized controlled trials are needed to support the validity of this approach to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer.

To determine the change in rate of salpingectomy performed at benign hysterectomy at Michigan hospitals, Sara Till, MD, MPH, and colleagues from the University of Michigan Health System performed a retrospective cross-sectioned study of data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. They examined hysterectomies performed for all surgical routes between January 2013 and April 2015. Exclusion criteria included malignancy and obstetric indication. The primary objective was to measure salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation. Measures studied included demographics; comorbidities; perioperative and postoperative results; and hospital/surgeon-related data; including surgeon volume, hospital type (ie, teaching), and hospital size.²

During the study period (January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2015), 18,642 hysterectomies were performed for benign indications, of which 55.7% (n = 10,382) were ovarian conserving. Among patients who underwent ovarian conserving hysterectomy, 44.9% (n = 4,668) had salpingectomy, with rates increasing steadily from 26.4% to 61.1% across the study period (P<.001). Salpingectomy was more likely with a laparoscopic approach (odds ratio [OR], 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69–3.20) and among women aged <60 years (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.42–1.98), but did not vary with surgeon volume. After adjustments for age, body mass index, and surgical approach using a mixed model, the researchers found substantial variation in rates of salpingectomy across hospital sites, ranging from 3.7% to 88.3%. Variation in adjusted salpingectomy rates was not associated with academic affiliation or hospital size.²

Dr. Till and colleagues concluded that there was a substantial rise in risk-reducing salpingectomy from January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2015, and that there is substantial variation in the practice of salpingectomy, which is not accounted for by patient, surgeon, or hospital characteristics.²

In the 11 studies that have examined the incidence of leiomyosarcoma (LMS) since the 2014 communications by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),¹ Dr. Matthew Siedhoff and colleagues found that the cumulative LMS incidence in 318,006 women was 0.0017%, or approximately 1 in 600. This is according to data Dr. Seidhoff presented November 16, 2016, at the 45th annual AAGL Global Congress on MIGS.² This reported risk is smaller than the 1 in 350 cited by the FDA in its 2014 notice.¹ Dr. Seidhoff concluded that, particularly in women aged younger than 50 years, minimally invasive hysterectomy remains a safe option for the informed patient to consider.

Regardless of the incidence of unsuspected LMS found in the studies published since 2014, what have been the practice changes among gynecologic surgeons as a result of the FDA’s 2014 actions? Kerac N. Falk, MD, explored this question with his colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, New York. He presented these findings to AAGL congress attendees on November 16 in Orlando, Florida.³ Notably, of 197 responders to a survey sent to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, 12.5% reported decreasing their use of power morcellation. A full 38.8% reported discontinuing altogether the use of a power morcellator.

One in 5 (20%) of gyn oncologists previously using power morcellation reported switching to laparotomy. Importantly, the drive for the switch was “driven by media, patient request, and the FDA rather than physician choice,” Falk said.

What if physicians, and patients, have another choice?

Here at the AAGL meeting, Olympus announced the FDA clearance, marketing, and initial training on its contained tissue extraction system—the PneumoLiner containment device and its accompanying laparoscopic PK Morcellator (FIGURE).

Both tools, FDA cleared in April and October 2016, respectively, provide low-risk, appropriate women with “an improved safety device,” said Jubilee Brown, MD, AAGL representative on power morcellation to the FDA and Associate Director of Gynecologic Oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute of the Carolinas HealthCare System in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“We have found at our institution that we have had to do more opens and minilaps on patients without the option for power morcellation, and this new device offers a way for us not to have to do that. Minimally invasive surgery stays truly minimally invasive surgery,” said Dr. Brown.

“Although I have a handful of patients who have chosen open surgery over minimally invasive surgery when MIS was appropriate, by and large most patients prefer the minimally invasive approach to surgery—especially when they learn that they have reduced risk for complications, blood loss, and pain; will be back to normal life faster; and will have less cosmetic incisions,” said Dr. Brown. “We all have tried workarounds, but for low-risk, appropriate patients under FDA guidelines, this new device by Olympus brings us back to minimally invasive options, and that is a good thing.”

How does the Olympus containment system work?

The PneumoLiner is the first containment device to receive FDA market clearance that is designed for use with certain laparoscopic morcellators to isolate uterine tissue that is not suspected to contain cancer.⁴

The containment bag and morcellator are not indicated for use in women with tissue that is known or suspected to contain malignancy; and should not be used for removal of uterine tissue containing suspected fibroids in patients who are peri- or post-menopausal, or candidates for en bloc tissue removal vaginally or via mini-laparotomy.⁴

When insufflated, the PneumoLiner bag allows for space and surgeon visibility throughout the power morcellation procedure while maintaining a barrier to the escape of fluids, cells, and tissue fragments. The bag creates a barrier between the targeted tissue and nontargeted abdominal contents, minimizing the risk of inadvertent damage to adjacent structures, says Olympus.⁴ See this video, which demonstrates the procedure.

Surgeon training on new device use is rigid, comprehensive, and not to be overlooked

“This is one of the rare times in my career when, right out of the gate, we have a very rigid and comprehensive way of educating and training physicians on the proper utilization of a new technology (avoiding the cart-before-the-horse phenomenon, in which a clinician is given the tools without the proper education),” said AAGL immediate past president Arnold Advincula, MD, “and it is important to underscore that.” Dr. Advincula is the Levine Family Professor, Vice-Chair of Women’s Health, and Chief of Gynecology at Sloane Women’s Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.

Training plans

Instead of its sales force, Olympus is having surgeons train other surgeons. Clinical Education Specialists, a small, select group of individuals within the company, also will be able to train. The required training follows a rigid protocol that was validated and submitted to the FDA as part of the approval process, said Jerilyn Hitchings, Director of Procedure Marketing at Olympus. After training up to 40 surgeons in the past 3 weeks, Olympus expects to train another 100 at AAGL.

“We have strict criteria for training, including that they are advanced laparoscopists,” fulfilling a minimum number of surgeries within a 90-day period, said Hitchings.

The 1-hour training requires surgeons to perform a 4-step protocol and demonstrate unaided proficiency at training conclusion. Olympus will not sell its product to a facility until an advanced surgeon has been trained there, according to Hitchings. And many physicians are approaching their institutions inquiring about training now, she reports.

Applications for training will be submitted to the Olympus Professional Education Team for approval. “We want this to go well. We know that there are many physicians who are hoping that this becomes a good reality, and we want to make sure that it is done properly. The training process adheres to that agenda.”

Having the technology is step 1

OBG Management Board of Editors member Dr. Advincula struck an optimistic tone in his June 2016 Guest Editorial for the journal,⁶ indicating his belief that the “tissue morcellation pendulum,” which has swung toward non−minimally invasive approaches since 2014, can change direction. At the Olympus containment system official introduction event at AAGL, he expressed the same optimism:

“We now have technology that has the promise of being able to deliver to women a safe way to undergo tissue extraction, to undergo a minimally invasive surgical procedure. …When you combine innovation and education together, you ultimately are going to advance MIS worldwide. With all the things going on around the world today, I think it is important that women be able to have a choice, an autonomous choice with her physician. Having the technology that allows physicians to extract tissue safely, to give women the option of undergoing a minimally invasive surgery, is critically important. I look forward to seeing how we can continue to advance surgery. Partnership with clinicians and with industry, such as Olympus, is going to be key to the success of how we advance women’s health care in general.”

What do AAGL attendees have to say about it?

“It’s a good thing for the minimally invasive market,” said John B. Gebhart, MD, MS, vaginal hysterectomy representative at the star-studded Operating with the Stars event on Thursday, November 17, and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

May Thomassee, MD, who practices in Lafayette, Louisiana, said that, for the past 3 years, she has been performing extracorporeal morcellation at her institution. “I think the new containment bag and morcellator devices that are attempting to be safer are a very good thing; however, my concern of introducing this new technology, such as bags, is that it may increase the cost within our health care system. We have had great success, and patients feel that they have options when we offer them—after informed consent and appropriate preoperative workup—an abdominal, vaginal, or extracorporeal morcellation approach.”

As a developer and proponent of the Extracorporeal Tissue Extraction (ExCITE) technique, Mireille Truong, MD, who demonstrated the ExCITE surgical approach with Dr. Advincula as part of the Research and Science Plenary here at AAGL, said, “I think the PneumoLiner is a great example of creativity and innovation. It’s good that we now have an FDA-approved device to offer and counsel patients as one of many options.” She added that, overall, the morcellation controversy has been “a positive experience. We have learned better as a community about how to approach new technology.”

In the 11 studies that have examined the incidence of leiomyosarcoma (LMS) since the 2014 communications by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),¹ Dr. Matthew Siedhoff and colleagues found that the cumulative LMS incidence in 318,006 women was 0.0017%, or approximately 1 in 600. This is according to data Dr. Seidhoff presented November 16, 2016, at the 45th annual AAGL Global Congress on MIGS.² This reported risk is smaller than the 1 in 350 cited by the FDA in its 2014 notice.¹ Dr. Seidhoff concluded that, particularly in women aged younger than 50 years, minimally invasive hysterectomy remains a safe option for the informed patient to consider.

Regardless of the incidence of unsuspected LMS found in the studies published since 2014, what have been the practice changes among gynecologic surgeons as a result of the FDA’s 2014 actions? Kerac N. Falk, MD, explored this question with his colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, New York. He presented these findings to AAGL congress attendees on November 16 in Orlando, Florida.³ Notably, of 197 responders to a survey sent to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, 12.5% reported decreasing their use of power morcellation. A full 38.8% reported discontinuing altogether the use of a power morcellator.

One in 5 (20%) of gyn oncologists previously using power morcellation reported switching to laparotomy. Importantly, the drive for the switch was “driven by media, patient request, and the FDA rather than physician choice,” Falk said.

What if physicians, and patients, have another choice?

Here at the AAGL meeting, Olympus announced the FDA clearance, marketing, and initial training on its contained tissue extraction system—the PneumoLiner containment device and its accompanying laparoscopic PK Morcellator (FIGURE).

Both tools, FDA cleared in April and October 2016, respectively, provide low-risk, appropriate women with “an improved safety device,” said Jubilee Brown, MD, AAGL representative on power morcellation to the FDA and Associate Director of Gynecologic Oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute of the Carolinas HealthCare System in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“We have found at our institution that we have had to do more opens and minilaps on patients without the option for power morcellation, and this new device offers a way for us not to have to do that. Minimally invasive surgery stays truly minimally invasive surgery,” said Dr. Brown.

“Although I have a handful of patients who have chosen open surgery over minimally invasive surgery when MIS was appropriate, by and large most patients prefer the minimally invasive approach to surgery—especially when they learn that they have reduced risk for complications, blood loss, and pain; will be back to normal life faster; and will have less cosmetic incisions,” said Dr. Brown. “We all have tried workarounds, but for low-risk, appropriate patients under FDA guidelines, this new device by Olympus brings us back to minimally invasive options, and that is a good thing.”

How does the Olympus containment system work?

The PneumoLiner is the first containment device to receive FDA market clearance that is designed for use with certain laparoscopic morcellators to isolate uterine tissue that is not suspected to contain cancer.⁴

The containment bag and morcellator are not indicated for use in women with tissue that is known or suspected to contain malignancy; and should not be used for removal of uterine tissue containing suspected fibroids in patients who are peri- or post-menopausal, or candidates for en bloc tissue removal vaginally or via mini-laparotomy.⁴

When insufflated, the PneumoLiner bag allows for space and surgeon visibility throughout the power morcellation procedure while maintaining a barrier to the escape of fluids, cells, and tissue fragments. The bag creates a barrier between the targeted tissue and nontargeted abdominal contents, minimizing the risk of inadvertent damage to adjacent structures, says Olympus.⁴ See this video, which demonstrates the procedure.

Surgeon training on new device use is rigid, comprehensive, and not to be overlooked

“This is one of the rare times in my career when, right out of the gate, we have a very rigid and comprehensive way of educating and training physicians on the proper utilization of a new technology (avoiding the cart-before-the-horse phenomenon, in which a clinician is given the tools without the proper education),” said AAGL immediate past president Arnold Advincula, MD, “and it is important to underscore that.” Dr. Advincula is the Levine Family Professor, Vice-Chair of Women’s Health, and Chief of Gynecology at Sloane Women’s Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.

Training plans

Instead of its sales force, Olympus is having surgeons train other surgeons. Clinical Education Specialists, a small, select group of individuals within the company, also will be able to train. The required training follows a rigid protocol that was validated and submitted to the FDA as part of the approval process, said Jerilyn Hitchings, Director of Procedure Marketing at Olympus. After training up to 40 surgeons in the past 3 weeks, Olympus expects to train another 100 at AAGL.

“We have strict criteria for training, including that they are advanced laparoscopists,” fulfilling a minimum number of surgeries within a 90-day period, said Hitchings.

The 1-hour training requires surgeons to perform a 4-step protocol and demonstrate unaided proficiency at training conclusion. Olympus will not sell its product to a facility until an advanced surgeon has been trained there, according to Hitchings. And many physicians are approaching their institutions inquiring about training now, she reports.

Applications for training will be submitted to the Olympus Professional Education Team for approval. “We want this to go well. We know that there are many physicians who are hoping that this becomes a good reality, and we want to make sure that it is done properly. The training process adheres to that agenda.”

Having the technology is step 1

OBG Management Board of Editors member Dr. Advincula struck an optimistic tone in his June 2016 Guest Editorial for the journal,⁶ indicating his belief that the “tissue morcellation pendulum,” which has swung toward non−minimally invasive approaches since 2014, can change direction. At the Olympus containment system official introduction event at AAGL, he expressed the same optimism:

“We now have technology that has the promise of being able to deliver to women a safe way to undergo tissue extraction, to undergo a minimally invasive surgical procedure. …When you combine innovation and education together, you ultimately are going to advance MIS worldwide. With all the things going on around the world today, I think it is important that women be able to have a choice, an autonomous choice with her physician. Having the technology that allows physicians to extract tissue safely, to give women the option of undergoing a minimally invasive surgery, is critically important. I look forward to seeing how we can continue to advance surgery. Partnership with clinicians and with industry, such as Olympus, is going to be key to the success of how we advance women’s health care in general.”

What do AAGL attendees have to say about it?

“It’s a good thing for the minimally invasive market,” said John B. Gebhart, MD, MS, vaginal hysterectomy representative at the star-studded Operating with the Stars event on Thursday, November 17, and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

May Thomassee, MD, who practices in Lafayette, Louisiana, said that, for the past 3 years, she has been performing extracorporeal morcellation at her institution. “I think the new containment bag and morcellator devices that are attempting to be safer are a very good thing; however, my concern of introducing this new technology, such as bags, is that it may increase the cost within our health care system. We have had great success, and patients feel that they have options when we offer them—after informed consent and appropriate preoperative workup—an abdominal, vaginal, or extracorporeal morcellation approach.”

As a developer and proponent of the Extracorporeal Tissue Extraction (ExCITE) technique, Mireille Truong, MD, who demonstrated the ExCITE surgical approach with Dr. Advincula as part of the Research and Science Plenary here at AAGL, said, “I think the PneumoLiner is a great example of creativity and innovation. It’s good that we now have an FDA-approved device to offer and counsel patients as one of many options.” She added that, overall, the morcellation controversy has been “a positive experience. We have learned better as a community about how to approach new technology.”

In the 11 studies that have examined the incidence of leiomyosarcoma (LMS) since the 2014 communications by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),¹ Dr. Matthew Siedhoff and colleagues found that the cumulative LMS incidence in 318,006 women was 0.0017%, or approximately 1 in 600. This is according to data Dr. Seidhoff presented November 16, 2016, at the 45th annual AAGL Global Congress on MIGS.² This reported risk is smaller than the 1 in 350 cited by the FDA in its 2014 notice.¹ Dr. Seidhoff concluded that, particularly in women aged younger than 50 years, minimally invasive hysterectomy remains a safe option for the informed patient to consider.

Regardless of the incidence of unsuspected LMS found in the studies published since 2014, what have been the practice changes among gynecologic surgeons as a result of the FDA’s 2014 actions? Kerac N. Falk, MD, explored this question with his colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, New York. He presented these findings to AAGL congress attendees on November 16 in Orlando, Florida.³ Notably, of 197 responders to a survey sent to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, 12.5% reported decreasing their use of power morcellation. A full 38.8% reported discontinuing altogether the use of a power morcellator.

One in 5 (20%) of gyn oncologists previously using power morcellation reported switching to laparotomy. Importantly, the drive for the switch was “driven by media, patient request, and the FDA rather than physician choice,” Falk said.

What if physicians, and patients, have another choice?

Here at the AAGL meeting, Olympus announced the FDA clearance, marketing, and initial training on its contained tissue extraction system—the PneumoLiner containment device and its accompanying laparoscopic PK Morcellator (FIGURE).

Both tools, FDA cleared in April and October 2016, respectively, provide low-risk, appropriate women with “an improved safety device,” said Jubilee Brown, MD, AAGL representative on power morcellation to the FDA and Associate Director of Gynecologic Oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute of the Carolinas HealthCare System in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“We have found at our institution that we have had to do more opens and minilaps on patients without the option for power morcellation, and this new device offers a way for us not to have to do that. Minimally invasive surgery stays truly minimally invasive surgery,” said Dr. Brown.

“Although I have a handful of patients who have chosen open surgery over minimally invasive surgery when MIS was appropriate, by and large most patients prefer the minimally invasive approach to surgery—especially when they learn that they have reduced risk for complications, blood loss, and pain; will be back to normal life faster; and will have less cosmetic incisions,” said Dr. Brown. “We all have tried workarounds, but for low-risk, appropriate patients under FDA guidelines, this new device by Olympus brings us back to minimally invasive options, and that is a good thing.”

How does the Olympus containment system work?

The PneumoLiner is the first containment device to receive FDA market clearance that is designed for use with certain laparoscopic morcellators to isolate uterine tissue that is not suspected to contain cancer.⁴

The containment bag and morcellator are not indicated for use in women with tissue that is known or suspected to contain malignancy; and should not be used for removal of uterine tissue containing suspected fibroids in patients who are peri- or post-menopausal, or candidates for en bloc tissue removal vaginally or via mini-laparotomy.⁴

When insufflated, the PneumoLiner bag allows for space and surgeon visibility throughout the power morcellation procedure while maintaining a barrier to the escape of fluids, cells, and tissue fragments. The bag creates a barrier between the targeted tissue and nontargeted abdominal contents, minimizing the risk of inadvertent damage to adjacent structures, says Olympus.⁴ See this video, which demonstrates the procedure.

Surgeon training on new device use is rigid, comprehensive, and not to be overlooked

“This is one of the rare times in my career when, right out of the gate, we have a very rigid and comprehensive way of educating and training physicians on the proper utilization of a new technology (avoiding the cart-before-the-horse phenomenon, in which a clinician is given the tools without the proper education),” said AAGL immediate past president Arnold Advincula, MD, “and it is important to underscore that.” Dr. Advincula is the Levine Family Professor, Vice-Chair of Women’s Health, and Chief of Gynecology at Sloane Women’s Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.

Training plans

Instead of its sales force, Olympus is having surgeons train other surgeons. Clinical Education Specialists, a small, select group of individuals within the company, also will be able to train. The required training follows a rigid protocol that was validated and submitted to the FDA as part of the approval process, said Jerilyn Hitchings, Director of Procedure Marketing at Olympus. After training up to 40 surgeons in the past 3 weeks, Olympus expects to train another 100 at AAGL.

“We have strict criteria for training, including that they are advanced laparoscopists,” fulfilling a minimum number of surgeries within a 90-day period, said Hitchings.

The 1-hour training requires surgeons to perform a 4-step protocol and demonstrate unaided proficiency at training conclusion. Olympus will not sell its product to a facility until an advanced surgeon has been trained there, according to Hitchings. And many physicians are approaching their institutions inquiring about training now, she reports.

Applications for training will be submitted to the Olympus Professional Education Team for approval. “We want this to go well. We know that there are many physicians who are hoping that this becomes a good reality, and we want to make sure that it is done properly. The training process adheres to that agenda.”

Having the technology is step 1

OBG Management Board of Editors member Dr. Advincula struck an optimistic tone in his June 2016 Guest Editorial for the journal,⁶ indicating his belief that the “tissue morcellation pendulum,” which has swung toward non−minimally invasive approaches since 2014, can change direction. At the Olympus containment system official introduction event at AAGL, he expressed the same optimism:

“We now have technology that has the promise of being able to deliver to women a safe way to undergo tissue extraction, to undergo a minimally invasive surgical procedure. …When you combine innovation and education together, you ultimately are going to advance MIS worldwide. With all the things going on around the world today, I think it is important that women be able to have a choice, an autonomous choice with her physician. Having the technology that allows physicians to extract tissue safely, to give women the option of undergoing a minimally invasive surgery, is critically important. I look forward to seeing how we can continue to advance surgery. Partnership with clinicians and with industry, such as Olympus, is going to be key to the success of how we advance women’s health care in general.”

What do AAGL attendees have to say about it?

“It’s a good thing for the minimally invasive market,” said John B. Gebhart, MD, MS, vaginal hysterectomy representative at the star-studded Operating with the Stars event on Thursday, November 17, and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

May Thomassee, MD, who practices in Lafayette, Louisiana, said that, for the past 3 years, she has been performing extracorporeal morcellation at her institution. “I think the new containment bag and morcellator devices that are attempting to be safer are a very good thing; however, my concern of introducing this new technology, such as bags, is that it may increase the cost within our health care system. We have had great success, and patients feel that they have options when we offer them—after informed consent and appropriate preoperative workup—an abdominal, vaginal, or extracorporeal morcellation approach.”

As a developer and proponent of the Extracorporeal Tissue Extraction (ExCITE) technique, Mireille Truong, MD, who demonstrated the ExCITE surgical approach with Dr. Advincula as part of the Research and Science Plenary here at AAGL, said, “I think the PneumoLiner is a great example of creativity and innovation. It’s good that we now have an FDA-approved device to offer and counsel patients as one of many options.” She added that, overall, the morcellation controversy has been “a positive experience. We have learned better as a community about how to approach new technology.”

Although patients have more assisted reproductive techniques (ART) available in recent years, management of infertility through minimally invasive surgical avenues can confront quality of life (QoL) and pathology concerns with birth rates equal to those with ART. This was a main takeaway in a packed ballroom in Orlando, Florida, at the 45th Global Congress of the AAGL. In this session, G. David Adamson, MD, brought together 3 top minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons to discuss clinical decisions in the overall and specific surgical management of: endometriomas and endometriosis, including deeply infiltrating disease; pelvic adhesions; distal tubal injury/occlusion; and proximal tubal occlusion by hysteroscopy.

Tommaso Falcone, MD, maintained that many patients (up to 85%) have pain with endometriomas, and addressing QoL for these women, with surgery versus managing their infertility only with in vitro fertilization (IVF), is an important consideration. Dr. Adamson noted that, “although there are no RCT data to guide management of endometriomas, we do have reasonable data to counsel patients on surgery versus IVF, with clinical considerations including patient age, presence of pain, and size of the endometrioma.”

Antonio Gargiulo, MD, advised attendees that when counseling patients on the role of laparoscopy in adhesiolysis to consider (1) that adhesions interfere with gamete and embryo transplant, (2) retrospective data from a small study show a positive effect of adhesiolysis in infertility, and (3) that the effect is dependent on the ASRM Adhesion Score. Regarding laparoscopy for distal tubal inclusion, he noted that case selection is important, as surgery can restore anatomic integrity but not functional integrity. In addition, he pointed out that neosalpingectomy before IVF should be considered in young women with mild hydrosalpinges when male factor infertility is present.

For proximal tubal occlusion, Dr. Gargiulo noted that hysteroscopy catheterization has diagnostic and therapeutic value, with contraindications including infection, inflammation, male factor infertility, and prior tubal surgery.

“Surgeons must offer and understand ART alternatives so that they can offer patient-centered choices,” said Dr. Gargiulo.

Finally, when does Dr. Leila Adamyan of the Federal State Institution Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology of the V.I. Kulakov Russian Federation perform myomectomy before IVF? In the presence of:

• submucosal myoma
• myoma greater than 4 cm in size
• multiple myoma.

When sarcoma is suspected, she advises the use of endobags.

Although patients have more assisted reproductive techniques (ART) available in recent years, management of infertility through minimally invasive surgical avenues can confront quality of life (QoL) and pathology concerns with birth rates equal to those with ART. This was a main takeaway in a packed ballroom in Orlando, Florida, at the 45th Global Congress of the AAGL. In this session, G. David Adamson, MD, brought together 3 top minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons to discuss clinical decisions in the overall and specific surgical management of: endometriomas and endometriosis, including deeply infiltrating disease; pelvic adhesions; distal tubal injury/occlusion; and proximal tubal occlusion by hysteroscopy.

Tommaso Falcone, MD, maintained that many patients (up to 85%) have pain with endometriomas, and addressing QoL for these women, with surgery versus managing their infertility only with in vitro fertilization (IVF), is an important consideration. Dr. Adamson noted that, “although there are no RCT data to guide management of endometriomas, we do have reasonable data to counsel patients on surgery versus IVF, with clinical considerations including patient age, presence of pain, and size of the endometrioma.”

Antonio Gargiulo, MD, advised attendees that when counseling patients on the role of laparoscopy in adhesiolysis to consider (1) that adhesions interfere with gamete and embryo transplant, (2) retrospective data from a small study show a positive effect of adhesiolysis in infertility, and (3) that the effect is dependent on the ASRM Adhesion Score. Regarding laparoscopy for distal tubal inclusion, he noted that case selection is important, as surgery can restore anatomic integrity but not functional integrity. In addition, he pointed out that neosalpingectomy before IVF should be considered in young women with mild hydrosalpinges when male factor infertility is present.

For proximal tubal occlusion, Dr. Gargiulo noted that hysteroscopy catheterization has diagnostic and therapeutic value, with contraindications including infection, inflammation, male factor infertility, and prior tubal surgery.

“Surgeons must offer and understand ART alternatives so that they can offer patient-centered choices,” said Dr. Gargiulo.

Finally, when does Dr. Leila Adamyan of the Federal State Institution Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology of the V.I. Kulakov Russian Federation perform myomectomy before IVF? In the presence of:

• submucosal myoma
• myoma greater than 4 cm in size
• multiple myoma.

When sarcoma is suspected, she advises the use of endobags.

Although patients have more assisted reproductive techniques (ART) available in recent years, management of infertility through minimally invasive surgical avenues can confront quality of life (QoL) and pathology concerns with birth rates equal to those with ART. This was a main takeaway in a packed ballroom in Orlando, Florida, at the 45th Global Congress of the AAGL. In this session, G. David Adamson, MD, brought together 3 top minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons to discuss clinical decisions in the overall and specific surgical management of: endometriomas and endometriosis, including deeply infiltrating disease; pelvic adhesions; distal tubal injury/occlusion; and proximal tubal occlusion by hysteroscopy.

Tommaso Falcone, MD, maintained that many patients (up to 85%) have pain with endometriomas, and addressing QoL for these women, with surgery versus managing their infertility only with in vitro fertilization (IVF), is an important consideration. Dr. Adamson noted that, “although there are no RCT data to guide management of endometriomas, we do have reasonable data to counsel patients on surgery versus IVF, with clinical considerations including patient age, presence of pain, and size of the endometrioma.”

Antonio Gargiulo, MD, advised attendees that when counseling patients on the role of laparoscopy in adhesiolysis to consider (1) that adhesions interfere with gamete and embryo transplant, (2) retrospective data from a small study show a positive effect of adhesiolysis in infertility, and (3) that the effect is dependent on the ASRM Adhesion Score. Regarding laparoscopy for distal tubal inclusion, he noted that case selection is important, as surgery can restore anatomic integrity but not functional integrity. In addition, he pointed out that neosalpingectomy before IVF should be considered in young women with mild hydrosalpinges when male factor infertility is present.

For proximal tubal occlusion, Dr. Gargiulo noted that hysteroscopy catheterization has diagnostic and therapeutic value, with contraindications including infection, inflammation, male factor infertility, and prior tubal surgery.

“Surgeons must offer and understand ART alternatives so that they can offer patient-centered choices,” said Dr. Gargiulo.

Finally, when does Dr. Leila Adamyan of the Federal State Institution Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology of the V.I. Kulakov Russian Federation perform myomectomy before IVF? In the presence of:

• submucosal myoma
• myoma greater than 4 cm in size
• multiple myoma.

When sarcoma is suspected, she advises the use of endobags.

• Visit NAMS

• Visit NAMS

• Visit NAMS

Visit the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons online: sgsonline.org

Related articles:  

• Alternative options for visualizing ureteral patency during intraoperative cystoscopy
• Use of suprapubic Carter-Thomason needle to assist in cystoscopic excision of an intravesical foreign object
• Uterine artery ligation: Advanced techniques and considerations for the difficult laparoscopic hysterectomy
• Cervical injection of methylene blue for identification of sentinel lymph nodes in cervical cancer
• Misplaced hysteroscopic sterilization micro-insert in the peritoneal cavity: A corpus alienum
• Laparoscopic cystectomy for large, bilateral ovarian dermoids
• Small bowel surgery for the benign gynecologist

Visit the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons online: sgsonline.org

Related articles:  

• Alternative options for visualizing ureteral patency during intraoperative cystoscopy
• Use of suprapubic Carter-Thomason needle to assist in cystoscopic excision of an intravesical foreign object
• Uterine artery ligation: Advanced techniques and considerations for the difficult laparoscopic hysterectomy
• Cervical injection of methylene blue for identification of sentinel lymph nodes in cervical cancer
• Misplaced hysteroscopic sterilization micro-insert in the peritoneal cavity: A corpus alienum
• Laparoscopic cystectomy for large, bilateral ovarian dermoids
• Small bowel surgery for the benign gynecologist

Visit the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons online: sgsonline.org

Related articles:  

• Alternative options for visualizing ureteral patency during intraoperative cystoscopy
• Use of suprapubic Carter-Thomason needle to assist in cystoscopic excision of an intravesical foreign object
• Uterine artery ligation: Advanced techniques and considerations for the difficult laparoscopic hysterectomy
• Cervical injection of methylene blue for identification of sentinel lymph nodes in cervical cancer
• Misplaced hysteroscopic sterilization micro-insert in the peritoneal cavity: A corpus alienum
• Laparoscopic cystectomy for large, bilateral ovarian dermoids
• Small bowel surgery for the benign gynecologist

A new single-handed inserter (SHI) for placement of Liletta has been introduced and is currently available (FIGURE 1). Liletta is a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system (IUS) that is currently approved for 3 years of use as a contraceptive in the United States. The same product in Europe, known as Levosert, is approved for both contraception and the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Liletta, as a branded contraceptive, is being studied through a large Phase 3 clinical trial called ACCESS IUS, which will continue to evaluate the contraceptive efficacy of Liletta for at least 7 years of use.¹ A recent publication from the study showed that the levonorgestrel release rates from Liletta are almost identical to the rates reported for the other levonorgestrel 52-mg IUS on the market (Mirena) through 5 years and supports the continued study of the IUS for at least 7 years.²

Image copyright Medicines360.

Related article:
Benefit of self-administered vaginal lidocaine gel in IUD placement

The initial marketing and distribution of Liletta used a two-handed inserter that allowed for successful placement but required multiple steps. The SHI will make loading and placement of Liletta easier for all clinicians. Features of the new SHI include:

• A double-slider mechanism in which the first slider moves into the second slider during IUS placement, providing a tactile sense for the user during the insertion process
• The ability to reload the inserter if needed before placement
• A firm but bendable tube (that is 2 cm longer than other IUS inserters on the market). This length can be helpful for obese patients or postprocedure placements.
• Depth markings to 12 cm on both sides of the insertion tube.

Related article:
2016 Update on contraception

Liletta is an important and unique product in the US market. For most public sector providers and clinics, Liletta costs only $50, significantly less than other long-acting reversible contraceptives. The price of the IUS is only one aspect of its overall cost, however, as women still need to pay for any office visit or insertion fees. Liletta is unique in its pricing. Sales of Liletta in the private sector support the low price in the public sector. As a health care community, even if we do not directly care for women in public-sector settings, we all can help poor women access affordable, effective contraception. For providers, Liletta is a highly effective and lower-cost alternative to currently available hormonal IUS products.

How to insert Liletta

Insertion can be performed using a no-touch technique. The loading and placement technique outlined below should occur after speculum and tenaculum placement, sounding of the uterus, and vaginal preparation as would be performed for any intrauterine contraceptive insertion. Never force the uterine sound or insertion tube through the cervix; if necessary, stop and dilate the cervical canal. The steps below are the main points for successful Liletta placement; see the full product label for more details.³

Related article:
In which clinical situations can the use of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (Mirena) and the TCu380A copper-IUD (ParaGard) be extended?

The key steps to remember are firm-gentle-firm

1. Load the device. While pushing forward firmly on the blue slider (with the number 1), load Liletta by pulling down evenly on the threads. The IUS should be laid on a flat surface in the sterile tray to keep the arms parallel to the floor while pulling on the threads. Once loaded, the threads can be pulled up or down to be locked in the cleft. The tip of the IUS will form a hemispheric dome at the top of the insertion tube.
2. Adjust the flange to the measured uterine depth based on sounding using the notch in the tray.
3. Place inserter into the cervix. Apply gentle traction on the tenaculum to align the cervical canal and uterine cavity. While still holding firm forward pressure on the blue slider, place the tube through the cervical canal until the flange is approximately 1.5 to 2 cm from the cervix. (FIGURE 2.) Gently slide the blue slider downward until it is flush with the green slider (with the number 2; FIGURE 3). This step will allow the IUS arms to open in the lower uterine segment; wait 10 to 15 seconds for the arms to fully unfold. By sliding gently, you will feel when to stop moving the slider.
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

   
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

4. Advance the inserter. While holding traction on the tenaculum, advance the inserter to the fundus. You will feel slight resistance when the IUS is at the fundus and the flange should be flush against the cervix.
5. Firmly slide both sliders together downward until a click is heard (FIGURE 4). A green indicator will be visible at the bottom of the handle to show that the threads have been ejected from the cleft.
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

6. Withdraw the inserter from the uterus and cut the threads with blunt tipped scissors approximately 3 cm from the cervical os.

Technique video

Allergan and Medicines360 offer a video demonstrating proper Liletta insertion technique at www.lilettahcp.com. The video includes proper loading of the inserter as well as correct uterine depth measurement and release of Liletta from the inserter. Clinicians are reminded to use aseptic technique during the entire insertion procedure.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

A new single-handed inserter (SHI) for placement of Liletta has been introduced and is currently available (FIGURE 1). Liletta is a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system (IUS) that is currently approved for 3 years of use as a contraceptive in the United States. The same product in Europe, known as Levosert, is approved for both contraception and the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Liletta, as a branded contraceptive, is being studied through a large Phase 3 clinical trial called ACCESS IUS, which will continue to evaluate the contraceptive efficacy of Liletta for at least 7 years of use.¹ A recent publication from the study showed that the levonorgestrel release rates from Liletta are almost identical to the rates reported for the other levonorgestrel 52-mg IUS on the market (Mirena) through 5 years and supports the continued study of the IUS for at least 7 years.²

Image copyright Medicines360.

Related article:
Benefit of self-administered vaginal lidocaine gel in IUD placement

The initial marketing and distribution of Liletta used a two-handed inserter that allowed for successful placement but required multiple steps. The SHI will make loading and placement of Liletta easier for all clinicians. Features of the new SHI include:

• A double-slider mechanism in which the first slider moves into the second slider during IUS placement, providing a tactile sense for the user during the insertion process
• The ability to reload the inserter if needed before placement
• A firm but bendable tube (that is 2 cm longer than other IUS inserters on the market). This length can be helpful for obese patients or postprocedure placements.
• Depth markings to 12 cm on both sides of the insertion tube.

Related article:
2016 Update on contraception

Liletta is an important and unique product in the US market. For most public sector providers and clinics, Liletta costs only $50, significantly less than other long-acting reversible contraceptives. The price of the IUS is only one aspect of its overall cost, however, as women still need to pay for any office visit or insertion fees. Liletta is unique in its pricing. Sales of Liletta in the private sector support the low price in the public sector. As a health care community, even if we do not directly care for women in public-sector settings, we all can help poor women access affordable, effective contraception. For providers, Liletta is a highly effective and lower-cost alternative to currently available hormonal IUS products.

How to insert Liletta

Insertion can be performed using a no-touch technique. The loading and placement technique outlined below should occur after speculum and tenaculum placement, sounding of the uterus, and vaginal preparation as would be performed for any intrauterine contraceptive insertion. Never force the uterine sound or insertion tube through the cervix; if necessary, stop and dilate the cervical canal. The steps below are the main points for successful Liletta placement; see the full product label for more details.³

Related article:
In which clinical situations can the use of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (Mirena) and the TCu380A copper-IUD (ParaGard) be extended?

The key steps to remember are firm-gentle-firm

1. Load the device. While pushing forward firmly on the blue slider (with the number 1), load Liletta by pulling down evenly on the threads. The IUS should be laid on a flat surface in the sterile tray to keep the arms parallel to the floor while pulling on the threads. Once loaded, the threads can be pulled up or down to be locked in the cleft. The tip of the IUS will form a hemispheric dome at the top of the insertion tube.
2. Adjust the flange to the measured uterine depth based on sounding using the notch in the tray.
3. Place inserter into the cervix. Apply gentle traction on the tenaculum to align the cervical canal and uterine cavity. While still holding firm forward pressure on the blue slider, place the tube through the cervical canal until the flange is approximately 1.5 to 2 cm from the cervix. (FIGURE 2.) Gently slide the blue slider downward until it is flush with the green slider (with the number 2; FIGURE 3). This step will allow the IUS arms to open in the lower uterine segment; wait 10 to 15 seconds for the arms to fully unfold. By sliding gently, you will feel when to stop moving the slider.
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

   
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

4. Advance the inserter. While holding traction on the tenaculum, advance the inserter to the fundus. You will feel slight resistance when the IUS is at the fundus and the flange should be flush against the cervix.
5. Firmly slide both sliders together downward until a click is heard (FIGURE 4). A green indicator will be visible at the bottom of the handle to show that the threads have been ejected from the cleft.
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

6. Withdraw the inserter from the uterus and cut the threads with blunt tipped scissors approximately 3 cm from the cervical os.

Technique video

Allergan and Medicines360 offer a video demonstrating proper Liletta insertion technique at www.lilettahcp.com. The video includes proper loading of the inserter as well as correct uterine depth measurement and release of Liletta from the inserter. Clinicians are reminded to use aseptic technique during the entire insertion procedure.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

A new single-handed inserter (SHI) for placement of Liletta has been introduced and is currently available (FIGURE 1). Liletta is a levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system (IUS) that is currently approved for 3 years of use as a contraceptive in the United States. The same product in Europe, known as Levosert, is approved for both contraception and the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Liletta, as a branded contraceptive, is being studied through a large Phase 3 clinical trial called ACCESS IUS, which will continue to evaluate the contraceptive efficacy of Liletta for at least 7 years of use.¹ A recent publication from the study showed that the levonorgestrel release rates from Liletta are almost identical to the rates reported for the other levonorgestrel 52-mg IUS on the market (Mirena) through 5 years and supports the continued study of the IUS for at least 7 years.²

Image copyright Medicines360.

Related article:
Benefit of self-administered vaginal lidocaine gel in IUD placement

The initial marketing and distribution of Liletta used a two-handed inserter that allowed for successful placement but required multiple steps. The SHI will make loading and placement of Liletta easier for all clinicians. Features of the new SHI include:

• A double-slider mechanism in which the first slider moves into the second slider during IUS placement, providing a tactile sense for the user during the insertion process
• The ability to reload the inserter if needed before placement
• A firm but bendable tube (that is 2 cm longer than other IUS inserters on the market). This length can be helpful for obese patients or postprocedure placements.
• Depth markings to 12 cm on both sides of the insertion tube.

Related article:
2016 Update on contraception

Liletta is an important and unique product in the US market. For most public sector providers and clinics, Liletta costs only $50, significantly less than other long-acting reversible contraceptives. The price of the IUS is only one aspect of its overall cost, however, as women still need to pay for any office visit or insertion fees. Liletta is unique in its pricing. Sales of Liletta in the private sector support the low price in the public sector. As a health care community, even if we do not directly care for women in public-sector settings, we all can help poor women access affordable, effective contraception. For providers, Liletta is a highly effective and lower-cost alternative to currently available hormonal IUS products.

How to insert Liletta

Insertion can be performed using a no-touch technique. The loading and placement technique outlined below should occur after speculum and tenaculum placement, sounding of the uterus, and vaginal preparation as would be performed for any intrauterine contraceptive insertion. Never force the uterine sound or insertion tube through the cervix; if necessary, stop and dilate the cervical canal. The steps below are the main points for successful Liletta placement; see the full product label for more details.³

Related article:
In which clinical situations can the use of the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing IUD (Mirena) and the TCu380A copper-IUD (ParaGard) be extended?

The key steps to remember are firm-gentle-firm

1. Load the device. While pushing forward firmly on the blue slider (with the number 1), load Liletta by pulling down evenly on the threads. The IUS should be laid on a flat surface in the sterile tray to keep the arms parallel to the floor while pulling on the threads. Once loaded, the threads can be pulled up or down to be locked in the cleft. The tip of the IUS will form a hemispheric dome at the top of the insertion tube.
2. Adjust the flange to the measured uterine depth based on sounding using the notch in the tray.
3. Place inserter into the cervix. Apply gentle traction on the tenaculum to align the cervical canal and uterine cavity. While still holding firm forward pressure on the blue slider, place the tube through the cervical canal until the flange is approximately 1.5 to 2 cm from the cervix. (FIGURE 2.) Gently slide the blue slider downward until it is flush with the green slider (with the number 2; FIGURE 3). This step will allow the IUS arms to open in the lower uterine segment; wait 10 to 15 seconds for the arms to fully unfold. By sliding gently, you will feel when to stop moving the slider.
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

   
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

4. Advance the inserter. While holding traction on the tenaculum, advance the inserter to the fundus. You will feel slight resistance when the IUS is at the fundus and the flange should be flush against the cervix.
5. Firmly slide both sliders together downward until a click is heard (FIGURE 4). A green indicator will be visible at the bottom of the handle to show that the threads have been ejected from the cleft.
   

   

   Image copyright Medicines360.

6. Withdraw the inserter from the uterus and cut the threads with blunt tipped scissors approximately 3 cm from the cervical os.

Technique video

Allergan and Medicines360 offer a video demonstrating proper Liletta insertion technique at www.lilettahcp.com. The video includes proper loading of the inserter as well as correct uterine depth measurement and release of Liletta from the inserter. Clinicians are reminded to use aseptic technique during the entire insertion procedure.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“SHOULD RISK-REDUCING GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY FOR BRCA MUTATION CARRIERS INCLUDE HYSTERECTOMY?”

ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (WEB EXCLUSIVE, AUGUST 28, 2016)

Hysterectomy warranted?

I am wondering if Dr. Kaunitz really is recommending performing 270 hysterectomies to prevent one endometrial cancer? Is this justified given the risks from the hysterectomy itself, the economics of the disease, or any significant reductions in endometrial cancer mortality?

David O. Holtz, MD
Paoli, Pennsylvania

Dr. Kaunitz responds

I appreciate Dr. Holtz’s interest in my commentary on the role of hysterectomy as part of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA mutation carriers. Women who are mutation carriers are at increased risk for serous or serous-like endometrial cancers. Further, hysterectomy offers specific advantages for young mutation carriers for whom menopausal hormone therapy is often indicated after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Accordingly, I would indeed encourage such women to consider hysterectomy as part of risk-reducing gynecologic surgery if such surgery can be accomplished via minimally invasive techniques.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“SHOULD RISK-REDUCING GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY FOR BRCA MUTATION CARRIERS INCLUDE HYSTERECTOMY?”

ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (WEB EXCLUSIVE, AUGUST 28, 2016)

Hysterectomy warranted?

I am wondering if Dr. Kaunitz really is recommending performing 270 hysterectomies to prevent one endometrial cancer? Is this justified given the risks from the hysterectomy itself, the economics of the disease, or any significant reductions in endometrial cancer mortality?

David O. Holtz, MD
Paoli, Pennsylvania

Dr. Kaunitz responds

I appreciate Dr. Holtz’s interest in my commentary on the role of hysterectomy as part of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA mutation carriers. Women who are mutation carriers are at increased risk for serous or serous-like endometrial cancers. Further, hysterectomy offers specific advantages for young mutation carriers for whom menopausal hormone therapy is often indicated after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Accordingly, I would indeed encourage such women to consider hysterectomy as part of risk-reducing gynecologic surgery if such surgery can be accomplished via minimally invasive techniques.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“SHOULD RISK-REDUCING GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY FOR BRCA MUTATION CARRIERS INCLUDE HYSTERECTOMY?”

ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (WEB EXCLUSIVE, AUGUST 28, 2016)

Hysterectomy warranted?

I am wondering if Dr. Kaunitz really is recommending performing 270 hysterectomies to prevent one endometrial cancer? Is this justified given the risks from the hysterectomy itself, the economics of the disease, or any significant reductions in endometrial cancer mortality?

David O. Holtz, MD
Paoli, Pennsylvania

Dr. Kaunitz responds

I appreciate Dr. Holtz’s interest in my commentary on the role of hysterectomy as part of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA mutation carriers. Women who are mutation carriers are at increased risk for serous or serous-like endometrial cancers. Further, hysterectomy offers specific advantages for young mutation carriers for whom menopausal hormone therapy is often indicated after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Accordingly, I would indeed encourage such women to consider hysterectomy as part of risk-reducing gynecologic surgery if such surgery can be accomplished via minimally invasive techniques.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Click here to download the PDF.

Despite advances in diagnostic medicine, the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) remains a challenge for physicians.  In this supplement, learn about:

• Pathophysiology and differential diagnosis of AUB
• The limitations of blind endometrial biopsy
• The differences between diagnostic hysteroscopy options

Author

Steven R. Goldstein, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

New York University School of Medicine

Immediate Past President

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

Director of Gynecologic Ultrasound and Co-Director of Bone Densitometry

New York University Medical Center

New York, New York

DISCLOSURES

Dr. Goldstein discloses that he is a paid consultant for CooperSurgical.

Click here to download the PDF.

Despite advances in diagnostic medicine, the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) remains a challenge for physicians.  In this supplement, learn about:

• Pathophysiology and differential diagnosis of AUB
• The limitations of blind endometrial biopsy
• The differences between diagnostic hysteroscopy options

Author

Steven R. Goldstein, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

New York University School of Medicine

Immediate Past President

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

Director of Gynecologic Ultrasound and Co-Director of Bone Densitometry

New York University Medical Center

New York, New York

DISCLOSURES

Dr. Goldstein discloses that he is a paid consultant for CooperSurgical.

Click here to download the PDF.

Despite advances in diagnostic medicine, the evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) remains a challenge for physicians.  In this supplement, learn about:

• Pathophysiology and differential diagnosis of AUB
• The limitations of blind endometrial biopsy
• The differences between diagnostic hysteroscopy options

Author

Steven R. Goldstein, MD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

New York University School of Medicine

Immediate Past President

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

Director of Gynecologic Ultrasound and Co-Director of Bone Densitometry

New York University Medical Center

New York, New York

DISCLOSURES

Dr. Goldstein discloses that he is a paid consultant for CooperSurgical.

The genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a constellation of symptoms and signs of a hypoestrogenic state resulting in some or all of the following: vaginal dryness, burning, irritation, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, dysuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections.¹ In 2014, the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society endorsed “GSM” as a new term to replace the less comprehensive description, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA).¹

The prevalence of GSM is around 50%, but it may increase each year after menopause, reaching up to 84.2%.^2,3 Only about half of women affected seek medical care, with the most commonly reported symptoms being vaginal dryness and dyspareunia.^3,4

Nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers andlubricants remain first-line treatment. The benefits are temporary and short lived because these options do not change the physiologic makeup of the vaginal wall; these treatments therefore provide relief only if the GSM symptoms are limited or mild.⁵

In this Update on pelvic floor dysfunction, we review 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of hormonal options (vaginal estrogen and oral ospemifene) and examine the latest information regarding fractional CO₂ vaginal laser treatment. Also included are evidence-based guidelines for vaginal estrogen use and recommendations and conclusions for use of vaginal estrogen in women with a history of estrogen-dependent breast cancer. (The terms used in the studies described [ie, VVA versus GSM] have been maintained for accuracy of reporting.)

Low-dose estrogen vaginal cream ameliorates moderate to severe VVA with limited adverse events

Freedman M, Kaunitz AM, Reape KZ, Hait H, Shu H. Twice-weekly synthetic conjugated estrogens vaginal cream for the treatment of vaginal atrophy. Menopause. 2009;16(4):735-741.

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, Freedman and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of a 1-g dose of synthetic conjugated estrogens A (SCE-A) cream versus placebo in postmenopausal women with moderate to severe VVA.

Details of the study

The investigators enrolled 305 participants aged 30 to 80 years (mean [SD] age, 60 [6.6] years) who were naturally or surgically postmenopausal. The enrollment criteria included ≤5% superficial cells on vaginal smear, vaginal pH >5.0, and at least 1 moderate or severe symptom of VVA (vaginal dryness, soreness, irritation/itching, pain with intercourse, or bleeding after intercourse).

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to twice-weekly therapy with 1 g (0.625 mg/g) SCE-A vaginal cream, 2 g SCE-A vaginal cream, 1 g placebo, or 2 g placebo. Study visits occurred on days 14, 21, 28, 56, and 84 (12-week end point). The 3 co-primary outcomes were cytology, vaginal pH, and most bothersome symptom (MBS). Primary outcomes and safety/adverse events (AEs) were recorded at each study visit, and transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy were performed for women with a uterus at the beginning and end of the study.

Mean change and percent change in the 3 primary outcomes were assessed between baseline and each study visit. MBS was scored on a scale of 0 to 3 (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). The principal indicators of efficacy were the changes from baseline to the end of treatment (12 weeks) for each of the 3 end points. Since the 1-g and 2-g SCE-A dose groups showed a similar degree of efficacy on all 3 co-primary end points, approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was sought only for the lower dose, in keeping with the use of the lowest effective dose; therefore, results from only the 1-g SCE-A dose group and matching placebo group were presented in the article. A sample size calculation determined that at least 111 participants in each group were needed to provide 90% power for statistical testing.

Estrogen reduced MBS severity, improved vaginal indices

The modified intent-to-treat (MITT) cohort was used for outcome analysis, and data from 275 participants were available at the 12-week end point. At baseline, 132 participants (48%) indicated vaginal dryness and 86 women (31.3%) indicated pain during intercourse as the MBS. In the SCE-A group at baseline, the vaginal maturation index (VMI) was 31.31 compared with 31.84 in the placebo group. At 12 weeks, the SCE-A group had a mean reduction of 1.71 in overall MBS severity compared with the placebo group’s mean reduction of 1.11 (P<.0001). The SCE-A group had a greater increase in the VMI (with a mean change of 31.46 vs 5.16 in the placebo group [P<.0001]) and a greater decrease in the vaginal pH (mean pH at the end of treatment for the SCE-A group was 4.84, a decrease of 1.48, and for the placebo group was 5.96, a decrease of 0.31 [P<.0001]).

Adverse events. The incidence of AEs was similar for the 1-g SCE-A group and the 1-g placebo group, with no AE occurring at a rate of higher than 5%. There were 15 (10%) treatment-related AEs in the estrogen group and 16 (10.3%) in the placebo group. The SCE-A group had 3 AEs (2%) leading to discontinuation, while the placebo group had 2 AEs (1.3%) leading to discontinuation. There were no clinically significant endometrial biopsy findings at the conclusion of the study.

Strengths and limitations. This study evaluated clinical and physiologic outcomes as well as uterine response to transvaginal estrogen. The use of MBS allows symptoms to be scored objectively compared with prior subjective symptom assessment, which varied widely. However, fewer indicated symptoms will permit limited conclusions.

Ospemifene improves vaginal physiology and dyspareunia

Bachmann GA, Komi JO; Ospemifene Study Group. Ospemifene effectively treats vulvovaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women: results from a pivotal phase 3 study. Menopause. 2010;17(3):480–486.

Bachmann and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of ospemifene for the treatment of VVA. This is one of the efficacy studies on which FDA approval was based. Ospemifene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that acts as an estrogen agonist/antagonist.

Details of the study

The study included 826 postmenopausal women randomly assigned to 30 mg/day of ospemifene, 60 mg/day of ospemifene, or placebo for 12 weeks. Participants were aged 40 to 80 years and met the criteria for VVA (defined as ≤5% superficial cells on vaginal smear [maturation index], vaginal pH >5.0, and at least 1 moderate or severe symptom of VVA). All women were given a nonhormonal lubricant for use as needed.

There were 4 co-primary end points: percentage of superficial cells on the vaginal smear, percentage of parabasal cells on the vaginal smear, vaginal pH, and self-assessed MBS using a Likert scale (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). The symptom score was calculated as the change from baseline to week 12 for each MBS. Safety was assessed by patient report; if a participant had an intact uterus and cervix, Pap test, endometrial thickness, and endometrial histologic analysis were performed at baseline and at 12 weeks. Baseline characteristics were similar among all treatment groups. A total of 46% of participants reported dyspareunia as their MBS, and 39% reported vaginal dryness.

Two dose levels of ospemifene effectively relieve symptoms

After 12 weeks of treatment, both the 30-mg and the 60-mg dose of ospemifene produced a statistically significant improvement in vaginal dryness and objective results of maturation index and vaginal pH compared with placebo. Vaginal dryness decreased in the ospemifene 30-mg group (1.22) and in the ospemifene 60-mg group (1.26) compared with placebo (0.84) (P = .04 for the 30-mg group and P = .021 for the 60-mg group). The percentage of superficial cells was increased in both treatment groups compared with placebo (7.8% for the 30-mg group, 10.8% for the 60-mg group, 2.2% for the placebo group; P<.001 for both). The percentage of parabasal cells decreased in both treatment groups compared with participants who received placebo (21.9% in the 30-mg group, 30.1% in the 60-mg group, and 3.98% in the placebo group; P<.001 for both). Both treatment groups had a decrease in vaginal pH versus the placebo group as well (0.67 decrease in the 30-mg group, 1.01 decrease in the 60-mg group, and 0.10 decrease in the placebo group; P<.001 for both). The 60-mg/day ospemifene dose improved dyspareunia compared with placebo and was more effective than the 30-mg dose for all end points.

Adverse effects. Hot flashes were reported in 9.6% of the 30-mg ospemifene group and in 8.3% of the 60-mg group, compared with 3.4% in the placebo group. The increased percentage of participants with hot flashes in the ospemifene groups did not lead to increased discontinuation with the study. Urinary tract infections, defined by symptoms only, were more common in the ospemifene groups (4.6% in the 30-mg group, 7.2% in the 60-mg group, and 2.2% in the placebo group). In each group, 5% of patients discontinued the study because of AEs. There were 5 serious AEs in the 30-mg ospemifene group, 4 serious AEs in the placebo group, and none in the 60-mg group. No venous thromboembolic events were reported.

Strengths and limitations. Vaginal physiology as well as common symptoms of GSM were assessed in this large study. However, AEs were self-reported. While ospemifene was found safe and well tolerated when the study was extended for an additional 52 weeks (in women without a uterus) and 40 weeks (in women with a uterus), longer follow-up is needed to determine  endometrial safety.^7,8

Fractional CO2 laser for VVA shows efficacy, patient satisfaction

Sokol ER, Karram MM. An assessment of the safety and efficacy of a fractional CO2 laser system for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy. Menopause. 2016;23(10):1102–1107.

In this first US pilot study, postmenopausal women received 3 fractional CO₂ laser treatments, 6 weeks apart. The investigators evaluated the safety and efficacy of the treatment for GSM.

Details of the study

Thirty women (mean age, 58.6 years) who were nonsmokers, postmenopausal, had less than stage 2 prolapse, no vaginal procedures for the past 6 months, and did not use vaginal creams, moisturizers, lubricants, or homeopathic preparations for the past 3 months were enrolled. Participants received 3 laser treatments with the SmartXide2, MonaLisa Touch (DEKA M.E.L.A. SRL, Florence, Italy) device at 6-week intervals followed by a 3-month follow-up.

The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) change in 6 categories (vaginal pain, burning, itching, dryness, dyspareunia, and dysuria) assessed from baseline to after each treatment, including 3 months after the final treatment, using an 11-point scale with 0 the lowest (no symptoms) and 10 the highest (extreme bother). Secondary outcomes were Vaginal Health Index (VHI) score, maximal tolerable dilator size, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire score, general quality of life, degree of difficulty performing the procedure, participant satisfaction, vaginal pH, adverse effects, and treatment discomfort assessed using the VAS.  

Improved VVA symptoms and vaginal caliber

Twenty-seven women completed the study. There was a statistically significant change in all 6 symptom categories measured with the VAS. Improvement change (SD) on the VAS was 1.7 (3.2) for pain, 1.4 (2.9) for burning, 1.4 (1.9) for itching, 1.0 (2.4) for dysuria, comparing baseline scores to scores after 3 treatments (all with P<.05). A greater improvement was noted for dryness, 6.1 (2.7), and for dyspareunia, 5.4 (2.9) (both P<.001). There was also a statistically significant change in overall improvement on the VHI and the FSFI. The mean (SD) VHI score at baseline was 14.4 (2.9; range, 8 to 20) and the mean (SD) after 3 laser treatments was 21.4 (2.9; range, 16 to 25), with an overall mean (SD) improvement of 7.0 (3.1; P<.001).

Twenty-six participants completed a follow-up FSFI, with a mean (SD) baseline score of 11.3 (7.3; range, 2 to 25) and a follow-up mean (SD) score of 8.8 (7.3; range, −3.7 to 27.2) (P<.001). There was an increase in dilator size of 83% when comparing baseline to follow-up. At baseline, 24 participants (80%) could comfortably accept an XS or S dilator, and at follow-up 23 of 24 women (96%) could comfortably accept an M or L dilator.

Adverse effects. At their follow-up, 96% of participants were satisfied or extremely satisfied with treatment. Two women reported mild-to-moderate pain lasting 2 to 3 days, and 2 had minor bleeding; however, no women withdrew or discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

Study limitations. This study evaluated the majority of GSM symptoms as well as change in vaginal caliber after a nonhormonal therapy. The cohort was small and had no placebo group. In addition, with the limited observation period, it is difficult to determine the duration of effect and long-term safety of repeated treatments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a constellation of symptoms and signs of a hypoestrogenic state resulting in some or all of the following: vaginal dryness, burning, irritation, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, dysuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections.¹ In 2014, the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society endorsed “GSM” as a new term to replace the less comprehensive description, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA).¹

The prevalence of GSM is around 50%, but it may increase each year after menopause, reaching up to 84.2%.^2,3 Only about half of women affected seek medical care, with the most commonly reported symptoms being vaginal dryness and dyspareunia.^3,4

Nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers andlubricants remain first-line treatment. The benefits are temporary and short lived because these options do not change the physiologic makeup of the vaginal wall; these treatments therefore provide relief only if the GSM symptoms are limited or mild.⁵

In this Update on pelvic floor dysfunction, we review 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of hormonal options (vaginal estrogen and oral ospemifene) and examine the latest information regarding fractional CO₂ vaginal laser treatment. Also included are evidence-based guidelines for vaginal estrogen use and recommendations and conclusions for use of vaginal estrogen in women with a history of estrogen-dependent breast cancer. (The terms used in the studies described [ie, VVA versus GSM] have been maintained for accuracy of reporting.)

Low-dose estrogen vaginal cream ameliorates moderate to severe VVA with limited adverse events

Freedman M, Kaunitz AM, Reape KZ, Hait H, Shu H. Twice-weekly synthetic conjugated estrogens vaginal cream for the treatment of vaginal atrophy. Menopause. 2009;16(4):735-741.

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, Freedman and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of a 1-g dose of synthetic conjugated estrogens A (SCE-A) cream versus placebo in postmenopausal women with moderate to severe VVA.

Details of the study

The investigators enrolled 305 participants aged 30 to 80 years (mean [SD] age, 60 [6.6] years) who were naturally or surgically postmenopausal. The enrollment criteria included ≤5% superficial cells on vaginal smear, vaginal pH >5.0, and at least 1 moderate or severe symptom of VVA (vaginal dryness, soreness, irritation/itching, pain with intercourse, or bleeding after intercourse).

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to twice-weekly therapy with 1 g (0.625 mg/g) SCE-A vaginal cream, 2 g SCE-A vaginal cream, 1 g placebo, or 2 g placebo. Study visits occurred on days 14, 21, 28, 56, and 84 (12-week end point). The 3 co-primary outcomes were cytology, vaginal pH, and most bothersome symptom (MBS). Primary outcomes and safety/adverse events (AEs) were recorded at each study visit, and transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy were performed for women with a uterus at the beginning and end of the study.

Mean change and percent change in the 3 primary outcomes were assessed between baseline and each study visit. MBS was scored on a scale of 0 to 3 (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). The principal indicators of efficacy were the changes from baseline to the end of treatment (12 weeks) for each of the 3 end points. Since the 1-g and 2-g SCE-A dose groups showed a similar degree of efficacy on all 3 co-primary end points, approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was sought only for the lower dose, in keeping with the use of the lowest effective dose; therefore, results from only the 1-g SCE-A dose group and matching placebo group were presented in the article. A sample size calculation determined that at least 111 participants in each group were needed to provide 90% power for statistical testing.

Estrogen reduced MBS severity, improved vaginal indices

The modified intent-to-treat (MITT) cohort was used for outcome analysis, and data from 275 participants were available at the 12-week end point. At baseline, 132 participants (48%) indicated vaginal dryness and 86 women (31.3%) indicated pain during intercourse as the MBS. In the SCE-A group at baseline, the vaginal maturation index (VMI) was 31.31 compared with 31.84 in the placebo group. At 12 weeks, the SCE-A group had a mean reduction of 1.71 in overall MBS severity compared with the placebo group’s mean reduction of 1.11 (P<.0001). The SCE-A group had a greater increase in the VMI (with a mean change of 31.46 vs 5.16 in the placebo group [P<.0001]) and a greater decrease in the vaginal pH (mean pH at the end of treatment for the SCE-A group was 4.84, a decrease of 1.48, and for the placebo group was 5.96, a decrease of 0.31 [P<.0001]).

Adverse events. The incidence of AEs was similar for the 1-g SCE-A group and the 1-g placebo group, with no AE occurring at a rate of higher than 5%. There were 15 (10%) treatment-related AEs in the estrogen group and 16 (10.3%) in the placebo group. The SCE-A group had 3 AEs (2%) leading to discontinuation, while the placebo group had 2 AEs (1.3%) leading to discontinuation. There were no clinically significant endometrial biopsy findings at the conclusion of the study.

Strengths and limitations. This study evaluated clinical and physiologic outcomes as well as uterine response to transvaginal estrogen. The use of MBS allows symptoms to be scored objectively compared with prior subjective symptom assessment, which varied widely. However, fewer indicated symptoms will permit limited conclusions.

Ospemifene improves vaginal physiology and dyspareunia

Bachmann GA, Komi JO; Ospemifene Study Group. Ospemifene effectively treats vulvovaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women: results from a pivotal phase 3 study. Menopause. 2010;17(3):480–486.

Bachmann and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of ospemifene for the treatment of VVA. This is one of the efficacy studies on which FDA approval was based. Ospemifene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that acts as an estrogen agonist/antagonist.

Details of the study

The study included 826 postmenopausal women randomly assigned to 30 mg/day of ospemifene, 60 mg/day of ospemifene, or placebo for 12 weeks. Participants were aged 40 to 80 years and met the criteria for VVA (defined as ≤5% superficial cells on vaginal smear [maturation index], vaginal pH >5.0, and at least 1 moderate or severe symptom of VVA). All women were given a nonhormonal lubricant for use as needed.

There were 4 co-primary end points: percentage of superficial cells on the vaginal smear, percentage of parabasal cells on the vaginal smear, vaginal pH, and self-assessed MBS using a Likert scale (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). The symptom score was calculated as the change from baseline to week 12 for each MBS. Safety was assessed by patient report; if a participant had an intact uterus and cervix, Pap test, endometrial thickness, and endometrial histologic analysis were performed at baseline and at 12 weeks. Baseline characteristics were similar among all treatment groups. A total of 46% of participants reported dyspareunia as their MBS, and 39% reported vaginal dryness.

Two dose levels of ospemifene effectively relieve symptoms

After 12 weeks of treatment, both the 30-mg and the 60-mg dose of ospemifene produced a statistically significant improvement in vaginal dryness and objective results of maturation index and vaginal pH compared with placebo. Vaginal dryness decreased in the ospemifene 30-mg group (1.22) and in the ospemifene 60-mg group (1.26) compared with placebo (0.84) (P = .04 for the 30-mg group and P = .021 for the 60-mg group). The percentage of superficial cells was increased in both treatment groups compared with placebo (7.8% for the 30-mg group, 10.8% for the 60-mg group, 2.2% for the placebo group; P<.001 for both). The percentage of parabasal cells decreased in both treatment groups compared with participants who received placebo (21.9% in the 30-mg group, 30.1% in the 60-mg group, and 3.98% in the placebo group; P<.001 for both). Both treatment groups had a decrease in vaginal pH versus the placebo group as well (0.67 decrease in the 30-mg group, 1.01 decrease in the 60-mg group, and 0.10 decrease in the placebo group; P<.001 for both). The 60-mg/day ospemifene dose improved dyspareunia compared with placebo and was more effective than the 30-mg dose for all end points.

Adverse effects. Hot flashes were reported in 9.6% of the 30-mg ospemifene group and in 8.3% of the 60-mg group, compared with 3.4% in the placebo group. The increased percentage of participants with hot flashes in the ospemifene groups did not lead to increased discontinuation with the study. Urinary tract infections, defined by symptoms only, were more common in the ospemifene groups (4.6% in the 30-mg group, 7.2% in the 60-mg group, and 2.2% in the placebo group). In each group, 5% of patients discontinued the study because of AEs. There were 5 serious AEs in the 30-mg ospemifene group, 4 serious AEs in the placebo group, and none in the 60-mg group. No venous thromboembolic events were reported.

Strengths and limitations. Vaginal physiology as well as common symptoms of GSM were assessed in this large study. However, AEs were self-reported. While ospemifene was found safe and well tolerated when the study was extended for an additional 52 weeks (in women without a uterus) and 40 weeks (in women with a uterus), longer follow-up is needed to determine  endometrial safety.^7,8

Fractional CO2 laser for VVA shows efficacy, patient satisfaction

Sokol ER, Karram MM. An assessment of the safety and efficacy of a fractional CO2 laser system for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy. Menopause. 2016;23(10):1102–1107.

In this first US pilot study, postmenopausal women received 3 fractional CO₂ laser treatments, 6 weeks apart. The investigators evaluated the safety and efficacy of the treatment for GSM.

Details of the study

Thirty women (mean age, 58.6 years) who were nonsmokers, postmenopausal, had less than stage 2 prolapse, no vaginal procedures for the past 6 months, and did not use vaginal creams, moisturizers, lubricants, or homeopathic preparations for the past 3 months were enrolled. Participants received 3 laser treatments with the SmartXide2, MonaLisa Touch (DEKA M.E.L.A. SRL, Florence, Italy) device at 6-week intervals followed by a 3-month follow-up.

The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) change in 6 categories (vaginal pain, burning, itching, dryness, dyspareunia, and dysuria) assessed from baseline to after each treatment, including 3 months after the final treatment, using an 11-point scale with 0 the lowest (no symptoms) and 10 the highest (extreme bother). Secondary outcomes were Vaginal Health Index (VHI) score, maximal tolerable dilator size, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire score, general quality of life, degree of difficulty performing the procedure, participant satisfaction, vaginal pH, adverse effects, and treatment discomfort assessed using the VAS.  

Improved VVA symptoms and vaginal caliber

Twenty-seven women completed the study. There was a statistically significant change in all 6 symptom categories measured with the VAS. Improvement change (SD) on the VAS was 1.7 (3.2) for pain, 1.4 (2.9) for burning, 1.4 (1.9) for itching, 1.0 (2.4) for dysuria, comparing baseline scores to scores after 3 treatments (all with P<.05). A greater improvement was noted for dryness, 6.1 (2.7), and for dyspareunia, 5.4 (2.9) (both P<.001). There was also a statistically significant change in overall improvement on the VHI and the FSFI. The mean (SD) VHI score at baseline was 14.4 (2.9; range, 8 to 20) and the mean (SD) after 3 laser treatments was 21.4 (2.9; range, 16 to 25), with an overall mean (SD) improvement of 7.0 (3.1; P<.001).

Twenty-six participants completed a follow-up FSFI, with a mean (SD) baseline score of 11.3 (7.3; range, 2 to 25) and a follow-up mean (SD) score of 8.8 (7.3; range, −3.7 to 27.2) (P<.001). There was an increase in dilator size of 83% when comparing baseline to follow-up. At baseline, 24 participants (80%) could comfortably accept an XS or S dilator, and at follow-up 23 of 24 women (96%) could comfortably accept an M or L dilator.

Adverse effects. At their follow-up, 96% of participants were satisfied or extremely satisfied with treatment. Two women reported mild-to-moderate pain lasting 2 to 3 days, and 2 had minor bleeding; however, no women withdrew or discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

Study limitations. This study evaluated the majority of GSM symptoms as well as change in vaginal caliber after a nonhormonal therapy. The cohort was small and had no placebo group. In addition, with the limited observation period, it is difficult to determine the duration of effect and long-term safety of repeated treatments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

The genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a constellation of symptoms and signs of a hypoestrogenic state resulting in some or all of the following: vaginal dryness, burning, irritation, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, dysuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections.¹ In 2014, the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society endorsed “GSM” as a new term to replace the less comprehensive description, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA).¹

The prevalence of GSM is around 50%, but it may increase each year after menopause, reaching up to 84.2%.^2,3 Only about half of women affected seek medical care, with the most commonly reported symptoms being vaginal dryness and dyspareunia.^3,4

Nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers andlubricants remain first-line treatment. The benefits are temporary and short lived because these options do not change the physiologic makeup of the vaginal wall; these treatments therefore provide relief only if the GSM symptoms are limited or mild.⁵

In this Update on pelvic floor dysfunction, we review 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of hormonal options (vaginal estrogen and oral ospemifene) and examine the latest information regarding fractional CO₂ vaginal laser treatment. Also included are evidence-based guidelines for vaginal estrogen use and recommendations and conclusions for use of vaginal estrogen in women with a history of estrogen-dependent breast cancer. (The terms used in the studies described [ie, VVA versus GSM] have been maintained for accuracy of reporting.)

Low-dose estrogen vaginal cream ameliorates moderate to severe VVA with limited adverse events

Freedman M, Kaunitz AM, Reape KZ, Hait H, Shu H. Twice-weekly synthetic conjugated estrogens vaginal cream for the treatment of vaginal atrophy. Menopause. 2009;16(4):735-741.

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, Freedman and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of a 1-g dose of synthetic conjugated estrogens A (SCE-A) cream versus placebo in postmenopausal women with moderate to severe VVA.

Details of the study

The investigators enrolled 305 participants aged 30 to 80 years (mean [SD] age, 60 [6.6] years) who were naturally or surgically postmenopausal. The enrollment criteria included ≤5% superficial cells on vaginal smear, vaginal pH >5.0, and at least 1 moderate or severe symptom of VVA (vaginal dryness, soreness, irritation/itching, pain with intercourse, or bleeding after intercourse).

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to twice-weekly therapy with 1 g (0.625 mg/g) SCE-A vaginal cream, 2 g SCE-A vaginal cream, 1 g placebo, or 2 g placebo. Study visits occurred on days 14, 21, 28, 56, and 84 (12-week end point). The 3 co-primary outcomes were cytology, vaginal pH, and most bothersome symptom (MBS). Primary outcomes and safety/adverse events (AEs) were recorded at each study visit, and transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy were performed for women with a uterus at the beginning and end of the study.

Mean change and percent change in the 3 primary outcomes were assessed between baseline and each study visit. MBS was scored on a scale of 0 to 3 (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). The principal indicators of efficacy were the changes from baseline to the end of treatment (12 weeks) for each of the 3 end points. Since the 1-g and 2-g SCE-A dose groups showed a similar degree of efficacy on all 3 co-primary end points, approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was sought only for the lower dose, in keeping with the use of the lowest effective dose; therefore, results from only the 1-g SCE-A dose group and matching placebo group were presented in the article. A sample size calculation determined that at least 111 participants in each group were needed to provide 90% power for statistical testing.

Estrogen reduced MBS severity, improved vaginal indices

The modified intent-to-treat (MITT) cohort was used for outcome analysis, and data from 275 participants were available at the 12-week end point. At baseline, 132 participants (48%) indicated vaginal dryness and 86 women (31.3%) indicated pain during intercourse as the MBS. In the SCE-A group at baseline, the vaginal maturation index (VMI) was 31.31 compared with 31.84 in the placebo group. At 12 weeks, the SCE-A group had a mean reduction of 1.71 in overall MBS severity compared with the placebo group’s mean reduction of 1.11 (P<.0001). The SCE-A group had a greater increase in the VMI (with a mean change of 31.46 vs 5.16 in the placebo group [P<.0001]) and a greater decrease in the vaginal pH (mean pH at the end of treatment for the SCE-A group was 4.84, a decrease of 1.48, and for the placebo group was 5.96, a decrease of 0.31 [P<.0001]).

Adverse events. The incidence of AEs was similar for the 1-g SCE-A group and the 1-g placebo group, with no AE occurring at a rate of higher than 5%. There were 15 (10%) treatment-related AEs in the estrogen group and 16 (10.3%) in the placebo group. The SCE-A group had 3 AEs (2%) leading to discontinuation, while the placebo group had 2 AEs (1.3%) leading to discontinuation. There were no clinically significant endometrial biopsy findings at the conclusion of the study.

Strengths and limitations. This study evaluated clinical and physiologic outcomes as well as uterine response to transvaginal estrogen. The use of MBS allows symptoms to be scored objectively compared with prior subjective symptom assessment, which varied widely. However, fewer indicated symptoms will permit limited conclusions.

Ospemifene improves vaginal physiology and dyspareunia

Bachmann GA, Komi JO; Ospemifene Study Group. Ospemifene effectively treats vulvovaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women: results from a pivotal phase 3 study. Menopause. 2010;17(3):480–486.

Bachmann and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of ospemifene for the treatment of VVA. This is one of the efficacy studies on which FDA approval was based. Ospemifene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that acts as an estrogen agonist/antagonist.

Details of the study

The study included 826 postmenopausal women randomly assigned to 30 mg/day of ospemifene, 60 mg/day of ospemifene, or placebo for 12 weeks. Participants were aged 40 to 80 years and met the criteria for VVA (defined as ≤5% superficial cells on vaginal smear [maturation index], vaginal pH >5.0, and at least 1 moderate or severe symptom of VVA). All women were given a nonhormonal lubricant for use as needed.

There were 4 co-primary end points: percentage of superficial cells on the vaginal smear, percentage of parabasal cells on the vaginal smear, vaginal pH, and self-assessed MBS using a Likert scale (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe). The symptom score was calculated as the change from baseline to week 12 for each MBS. Safety was assessed by patient report; if a participant had an intact uterus and cervix, Pap test, endometrial thickness, and endometrial histologic analysis were performed at baseline and at 12 weeks. Baseline characteristics were similar among all treatment groups. A total of 46% of participants reported dyspareunia as their MBS, and 39% reported vaginal dryness.

Two dose levels of ospemifene effectively relieve symptoms

After 12 weeks of treatment, both the 30-mg and the 60-mg dose of ospemifene produced a statistically significant improvement in vaginal dryness and objective results of maturation index and vaginal pH compared with placebo. Vaginal dryness decreased in the ospemifene 30-mg group (1.22) and in the ospemifene 60-mg group (1.26) compared with placebo (0.84) (P = .04 for the 30-mg group and P = .021 for the 60-mg group). The percentage of superficial cells was increased in both treatment groups compared with placebo (7.8% for the 30-mg group, 10.8% for the 60-mg group, 2.2% for the placebo group; P<.001 for both). The percentage of parabasal cells decreased in both treatment groups compared with participants who received placebo (21.9% in the 30-mg group, 30.1% in the 60-mg group, and 3.98% in the placebo group; P<.001 for both). Both treatment groups had a decrease in vaginal pH versus the placebo group as well (0.67 decrease in the 30-mg group, 1.01 decrease in the 60-mg group, and 0.10 decrease in the placebo group; P<.001 for both). The 60-mg/day ospemifene dose improved dyspareunia compared with placebo and was more effective than the 30-mg dose for all end points.

Adverse effects. Hot flashes were reported in 9.6% of the 30-mg ospemifene group and in 8.3% of the 60-mg group, compared with 3.4% in the placebo group. The increased percentage of participants with hot flashes in the ospemifene groups did not lead to increased discontinuation with the study. Urinary tract infections, defined by symptoms only, were more common in the ospemifene groups (4.6% in the 30-mg group, 7.2% in the 60-mg group, and 2.2% in the placebo group). In each group, 5% of patients discontinued the study because of AEs. There were 5 serious AEs in the 30-mg ospemifene group, 4 serious AEs in the placebo group, and none in the 60-mg group. No venous thromboembolic events were reported.

Strengths and limitations. Vaginal physiology as well as common symptoms of GSM were assessed in this large study. However, AEs were self-reported. While ospemifene was found safe and well tolerated when the study was extended for an additional 52 weeks (in women without a uterus) and 40 weeks (in women with a uterus), longer follow-up is needed to determine  endometrial safety.^7,8

Fractional CO2 laser for VVA shows efficacy, patient satisfaction

Sokol ER, Karram MM. An assessment of the safety and efficacy of a fractional CO2 laser system for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy. Menopause. 2016;23(10):1102–1107.

In this first US pilot study, postmenopausal women received 3 fractional CO₂ laser treatments, 6 weeks apart. The investigators evaluated the safety and efficacy of the treatment for GSM.

Details of the study

Thirty women (mean age, 58.6 years) who were nonsmokers, postmenopausal, had less than stage 2 prolapse, no vaginal procedures for the past 6 months, and did not use vaginal creams, moisturizers, lubricants, or homeopathic preparations for the past 3 months were enrolled. Participants received 3 laser treatments with the SmartXide2, MonaLisa Touch (DEKA M.E.L.A. SRL, Florence, Italy) device at 6-week intervals followed by a 3-month follow-up.

The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) change in 6 categories (vaginal pain, burning, itching, dryness, dyspareunia, and dysuria) assessed from baseline to after each treatment, including 3 months after the final treatment, using an 11-point scale with 0 the lowest (no symptoms) and 10 the highest (extreme bother). Secondary outcomes were Vaginal Health Index (VHI) score, maximal tolerable dilator size, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire score, general quality of life, degree of difficulty performing the procedure, participant satisfaction, vaginal pH, adverse effects, and treatment discomfort assessed using the VAS.  

Improved VVA symptoms and vaginal caliber

Twenty-seven women completed the study. There was a statistically significant change in all 6 symptom categories measured with the VAS. Improvement change (SD) on the VAS was 1.7 (3.2) for pain, 1.4 (2.9) for burning, 1.4 (1.9) for itching, 1.0 (2.4) for dysuria, comparing baseline scores to scores after 3 treatments (all with P<.05). A greater improvement was noted for dryness, 6.1 (2.7), and for dyspareunia, 5.4 (2.9) (both P<.001). There was also a statistically significant change in overall improvement on the VHI and the FSFI. The mean (SD) VHI score at baseline was 14.4 (2.9; range, 8 to 20) and the mean (SD) after 3 laser treatments was 21.4 (2.9; range, 16 to 25), with an overall mean (SD) improvement of 7.0 (3.1; P<.001).

Twenty-six participants completed a follow-up FSFI, with a mean (SD) baseline score of 11.3 (7.3; range, 2 to 25) and a follow-up mean (SD) score of 8.8 (7.3; range, −3.7 to 27.2) (P<.001). There was an increase in dilator size of 83% when comparing baseline to follow-up. At baseline, 24 participants (80%) could comfortably accept an XS or S dilator, and at follow-up 23 of 24 women (96%) could comfortably accept an M or L dilator.

Adverse effects. At their follow-up, 96% of participants were satisfied or extremely satisfied with treatment. Two women reported mild-to-moderate pain lasting 2 to 3 days, and 2 had minor bleeding; however, no women withdrew or discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

Study limitations. This study evaluated the majority of GSM symptoms as well as change in vaginal caliber after a nonhormonal therapy. The cohort was small and had no placebo group. In addition, with the limited observation period, it is difficult to determine the duration of effect and long-term safety of repeated treatments.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.