Consensus between niche experts was achieved on all items regarding ultrasonographic niche measurement.

We proposes a uniform classification and reporting system of different types of adenomyosis based on ultrasound. The clinical relevance of this approach needs to be evaluated in further studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

What are the novel findings of this work?In this modified Delphi study, 13 experts on ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis reached consensus on revised definitions of the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis and classified these into direct and indirect sonographic signs of adenomyosis. What are the clinical implications of this work?The revised definitions of MUSA features of adenomyosis and the distinction between direct and indirect signs should facilitate recognition and diagnosis of adenomyosis in clinical practice. The updated definitions are important for future studies on the relationship between the MUSA features of adenomyosis and clinical symptoms and reproductive outcome.

Objective To develop a standardized sonographic evaluation and reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the first trimester, for use by both general gynecology and expert clinics. Methods A modified Delphi procedure was carried out, in which 28 international experts in obstetric and gynecological ultrasonography were invited to participate. Extensive experience in the use of ultrasound to evaluate Cesarean section (CS) scars in early pregnancy and/or publications concerning CSP or niche evaluation was required to participate. Relevant items for the detection and evaluation of CSP were determined based on the results of a literature search. Consensus was predefined as a level of agreement of at least 70% for each item, and a minimum of three Delphi rounds were planned (two online questionnaires and one group meeting). Results Sixteen experts participated in the Delphi study and four Delphi rounds were performed. In total, 58 items were determined to be relevant. We differentiated between basic measurements to be performed in general practice and advanced measurements for expert centers or for research purposes. The panel also formulated advice on indications for referral to an expert clinic. Consensus was reached for all 58 items on the definition, terminology, relevant items for evaluation and reporting of CSP. It was recommended that the first CS scar evaluation to determine the location of the pregnancy should be performed at 6–7 weeks' gestation using transvaginal ultrasound. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was not considered to add value in the diagnosis of CSP. A CSP was defined as a pregnancy with implantation in, or in close contact with, the niche. The experts agreed that a CSP can occur only when a niche is present and not in relation to a healed CS scar. Relevant sonographic items to record included gestational sac (GS) size, vascularity, location in relation to the uterine vessels, thickness of the residual myometrium and location of the pregnancy in relation to the uterine cavity and serosa. According to its location, a CSP can be classified as: (1) CSP in which the largest part of the GS protrudes towards the uterine cavity; (2) CSP in which the largest part of the GS is embedded in the myometrium but does not cross the serosal contour; and (3) CSP in which the GS is partially located beyond the outer contour of the cervix or uterus. The type of CSP may change with advancing gestation. Future studies are needed to validate this reporting system and the value of the different CSP types. Conclusion Consensus was achieved among experts regarding the sonographic evaluation and reporting of CSP in the first trimester. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

NTR 3120.

BackgroundE-learning is driving major shifts in medical education. Prioritizing learning theories and quality models improves the success of e-learning programs. Although many e-learning quality standards are available, few are focused on postgraduate medical education.MethodsWe conducted an integrative review of the current postgraduate medical e-learning literature to identify quality specifications. The literature was thematically organized into a working model.ResultsUnique quality specifications (n = 72) were consolidated and re-organized into a six-domain model that we called the Postgraduate Medical E-learning Model (Postgraduate ME Model). This model was partially based on the ISO-19796 standard, and drew on cognitive load multimedia principles. The domains of the model are preparation, software design and system specifications, communication, content, assessment, and maintenance.ConclusionThis review clarified the current state of postgraduate medical e-learning standards and specifications. It also synthesized these specifications into a single working model. To validate our findings, the next-steps include testing the Postgraduate ME Model in controlled e-learning settings.

Background The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is holding the world in its grip. Epidemiologists have shown that the mortality risks are higher when the health care system is subjected to pressure from COVID-19. It is therefore of great importance to maintain the health of health care providers and prevent contamination. An important group who will be required to treat patients with COVID-19 are health care providers during semiacute surgery. There are concerns that laparoscopic surgery increases the risk of contamination more than open surgery; therefore, balancing the safety of health care providers with the benefit of laparoscopic surgery for the patient is vital. Objective We aimed to provide an overview of potential contamination routes and possible risks for health care providers; we also aimed to propose research questions based on current literature and expert opinions about performing laparoscopic surgery on patients with COVID-19. Methods We performed a scoping review, adding five additional questions concerning possible contaminating routes. A systematic search was performed on the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases, adding results from gray literature as well. The search not only included COVID-19 but was extended to virus contamination in general. We excluded society and professional association statements about COVID-19 if they did not add new insights to the available literature. Results The initial search provided 2007 records, after which 267 full-text papers were considered. Finally, we used 84 papers, of which 14 discussed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Eight papers discussed the added value of performing intubation in a low-pressure operating room, mainly based on the SARS outbreak experience in 2003. Thirteen papers elaborated on the risks of intubation for health care providers and SARS-CoV-2, and 19 papers discussed this situation with other viruses. They conclude that there is significant evidence that intubation and extubation is a high-risk aerosol-producing procedure. No papers were found on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 and surgical smoke, although 25 papers did provide conflicting evidence on the infection risk of human papillomavirus, hepatitis B, polio, and rabies. No papers were found discussing tissue extraction or the deflation risk of the pneumoperitoneum after laparoscopic surgery. Conclusions There seems to be consensus in the literature that intubation and extubation are high-risk procedures for health care providers and that maximum protective equipment is needed. On the other hand, minimal evidence is available of the actual risk of contamination of health care providers during laparoscopy itself, nor of operating room pressure, surgical smoke, tissue extraction, or CO2 deflation. However, new studies are being published daily from current experiences, and society statements are continuously updated. There seems to be no reason to abandon laparoscopic surgery in favor of open surgery. However, the risks should not be underestimated, surgery should be performed on patients with COVID-19 only when necessary, and health care providers should use logic and common sense to protect themselves and others by performing surgery in a safe and protected environment.

a,d for the 2Close study group*