This systematic review and meta-analysis compares adverse neonatal outcomes among mothers exposed to marijuana during pregnancy vs mothers not exposed to marijuana during pregnancy in 16 cohort studies.

Objectives COVID-19 is a rapidly changing and developing emergency that requires constant re-evaluation of available data. We report a systematic review and meta analysis based on all published high quality data up to and including June 3rd 2021 on the maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women infected with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data Sources PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases were queried from inception up to June 3rd 2021. Study Eligibility Criteria We included all clinical studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and rapid communications) that reported data on any maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Data were analyzed as pooled proportions or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in meta-analysis models. Results We included 111 studies enrolling 42754 COVID-19-positive pregnant women. From COVID-19-positive pregnant women, the incidence rate of cesarean section was 53.2% (95% CI: 48%–58.4%), 41.5% (95% CI: 36.3%–46.8%) for spontaneous vaginal delivery and 6.4% (95% CI: 4.5%–9.2%) for operative delivery. The rate of some adverse neonatal events was relatively high in mothers infected with COVID-19 including premature delivery (16.7%, 95% CI: 12.8%–21.5%), and low birthweight (16.7%, 95% CI: 12.8%–21.5%). Vertical transmission (3.5%, 95% CI: 2.7%–4.7%), neonatal death (3%, 95% CI: 2%–4%), stillbirth (1.9%, 95% CI: 1.5–2.4%) and maternal mortality (0.012% 95% CI: 0.010-0.014%) were rare adverse events. Mean birth weight was 3069.7g, 95% CI: 3009.7g–3129.8g). In the comparative analysis, COVID-19 significantly increased the risk of premature delivery (OR= 1. 48, [95% CI; 1 .22, 1.8]), preeclampsia (OR= 1. 6, [95% CI; 1.2, 2.1]), stillbirth (OR= 2.36, [95% CI 1.24, 4.462]), neonatal mortality (OR= 3.35, [95% CI; 1.07, 10.5]), and maternal mortality (OR= 3.08, [95% CI; 1.5, 6.3]). Pooled analyses were homogenous, with mild heterogeneity in premature delivery and preeclampsia outcomes. Conclusion Data must be interpreted with caution as limited data is available and no complete assessment of bias is possible at this time. Our data suggests that pregnant women who test positive for COVID-19 seem to be at higher risk for lower birth weights and premature delivery. There is no evidence at this time of the sharply increased maternal mortality that was seen with both the previous 2002 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemics.

Interstitial pregnancy is a rare, life-threatening condition that requires high clinical suspicion for diagnosis. Most cases are discovered after complications have occurred. Many authors have described laparoscopic management. Although previous systematic reviews have compared the attributes and complications associated with interstitial pregnancy, we endeavored to complete the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the laparoscopic treatment of interstitial pregnancy with the open approach in the modern age of laparoscopic surgery. We systematically searched PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane until June 2020 using relevant keywords and screened them for eligibility. We found a statistically significant difference in blood loss between laparoscopic and open surgery (168 mL compared to 1,163 mL). Further, cumulative meta-analysis has revealed that blood loss in laparoscopy has been decreasing over time from 1991 to 2020. Laparoscopic patients took less operative time (63.2 minutes) compared to laparotomy patients (78.2 minutes). Patients in the laparoscopic group spent less time hospitalized (3.7 days) compared to laparotomy patients (5.2 days). Our findings add strength to the position that laparoscopic approaches to interstitial pregnancy can be considered first-line in most situations. The laparoscopic approach was found to have a mean blood loss of 168 mL, and this blood loss seems to decrease over time. Increased gravidity and duration of amenorrhea are positive factors that increase bleeding during the procedure. We are unable to find enough high-quality data to significantly compare successful pregnancy following surgery or risk of mortality in these populations.

Background Interstitial pregnancy is a rare but life-threatening condition accounting for 1-4% of all types of tubal ectopic pregnancies. It can be managed by open and minimally invasive surgical techniques. Our goal was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery for managing interstitial pregnancy. Search Strategy We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane up to May 2020. Selection Criteria 1) Women with interstitial pregnancy, 2) Intervention: laparoscopic surgery, 3) Comparator: open surgery, 4) Outcomes: Hospital stay, operation time, pain scale, blood loss. Secondary outcomes: any other reported 5) Study designs: interventional and observational. Data collection and analysis Data was extracted from the relevant articles and was pooled as mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Main Results We included six studies, three of which provided eligible data. The duration of hospital stay was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group (MD = -1.42, 95% CI [-1.72, -0.76], P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in operative time (MD = 5.90, 95% CI [-11.30, 23.09], P = 0.50, blood loss (MD = -9.43, 95% CI [-214.18, 195.32], P = 0.93), complications (RR = 1.54, 95% CI [0.20, 11.85], P = 0.68), or blood transfusions (RR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.50, 1.25], P = 0.30). Conclusion Laparoscopic surgery is associated with shorter hospital stay, with no difference in terms of blood loss, post-, and intraoperative complications, and need for blood transfusion compared with laparotomy.

Cervical insufficiency is a defect of the cervix that leads to failure to preserve a full-term intrauterine pregnancy.Laparoscopic cerclage and open transabdominal cerclage (TAC) are effective ways to manage patients with cervical insufficiency. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the complications of laparoscopic cerclage and open TAC in the management of cervical insufficiency. Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science using our search strategy and screened the results for our criteria. We extracted the results reported and analyzed them using Open Meta-Analyst (OpenMeta[Analyst], Brown School of Public Health, Providence, RI) and Review Manager (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) software. Methods of Study Selection:We included all randomized controlled and observational trials performed on patients with cervical insufficiency undergoing open TAC or laparoscopic cerclage that matched our search strategy. We excluded letters to the editor, reviews, meetings/conference abstracts, non-English or nonhuman studies, and instances where the full text was not available. Tabulation, Integration, and Results: We included a total of 33 trials. Both interventions of laparoscopic cerclage and open TAC were associated with significantly less total fetal loss (laparoscopic cerclage, relative risk [RR] 0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01−0.08; p <.001, and open TAC, RR 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07−0.51; p <.009). The overall blood loss in open TAC was 110.589 mL (95% CI, 93.737−127.44; p <.001), and in laparoscopic cerclage, it was 24.549 mL (95% CI, 9.892−39.205; p = .001). In addition, open TAC had a positive effect regarding incidence of hemorrhage >400 mL (RR 0.077; 95% CI, 0.033−0.122; p <.001). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was significant in the open TAC (RR 0.037; 95% CI, 0.019−0.055; p <.001) and laparoscopic cerclage groups (RR 0.031; 95% CI, 0.009−0.053; p = .006). Conclusion: Laparoscopic cerclage may be safer than open TAC in the management of cervical insufficiency because we found a statistically significant lower incidence of fetal loss, blood loss, and rate of hemorrhage in the laparoscopic cerclage group. Clinically, this evidence may help support favoring a laparoscopic approach over an open one in appropriate patients, although it is unclear whether this benefit is limited to cerclages placed either before pregnancy or placed in the first-trimester or both.