All women showed improvements in quality of life and function at 12 weeks after delivery, regardless of treatment allocation. Further study is needed to determine whether PFPT provides a significant benefit to women having OASIS.

No abstract

Objective: To prospectively assess if chromium levels are different in gestational diabetics than in nondiabetic pregnant women. Therapeutic options could exist if levels are different.Methods: We conducted a 2-year prospective, gestational cohort study. The cohort included newly diagnosed pregnant patients. Two blood samples were taken, the first at consent, the second at the time of diabetes screening.Results: Five hundred eighty patients entered the cohort. One hundred fifty-five were lost to follow up and 425 patients completed the study (396 nondiabetics and 29 diabetics). The patients with gestational diabetes were significantly older, with a family history of gestational diabetes, and were significantly more likely to have been a gestational diabetic in a previous pregnancy (P < 05). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for chromium levels both at enrollment (0.15 ؎ 0.06 ng/mL vs 0.14 ؎ 0.03 ng/mL; P ‫؍‬ .28) and during the second trimester (0.14 ؎ 0.06 ng/mL vs 0.14 ؎ 0.04 ng/mL; P ‫؍‬ .82).Conclusion: Serum chromium levels do not exhibit any significant variation between gestational diabetic women and nondiabetic women when assessed prospectively.

Although there was no difference based on VAS, women receiving vaginal packing had lower nursing documented pain and used less ketorolac than packed women. Vaginal packing may provide benefit and can remain part of the surgical practice.

Objective This study was conducted to assess the utility of a mirror in improving pain and vulnerability during a pelvic examination. Methods In this prospective, institutional review board-approved, 2-cohort trial, all “new” patients presenting to a urogynecology office were offered to have a mirror or no-mirror present during their pelvic examination. Patients completed 100-mm visual analog scales regarding pain, anxiety, knowledge, control, embarrassment, and vulnerability before and after examination. The primary outcome was difference in level of pain and vulnerability between groups. Secondary outcomes included comparisons from baseline to postexamination scores within groups, patient satisfaction, and examination duration. A sample size of 68 participants in each arm was planned. Results From April 2019 to May 2020, 147 participants were enrolled. Two participants were excluded, 145 were included in the final analysis; 74 in the no-mirror group and 71 in the mirror group. The average age was 55.9 (±13) years, and the groups were overall similar. There was no difference in primary outcomes of pain or vulnerability, but the mirror group showed improved levels of control (P = 0.006) and knowledge (P = 0.018) following examination. All participants reported high satisfaction, and those that selected a mirror reported strong preference for future use. Conclusions Patients who chose to use the mirror did not demonstrate a difference in pain or vulnerability scores; however, they exhibited benefit to their sense of control and knowledge after the pelvic examination. Although the mirror did not benefit all patients, this is a simple option that could improve the examination experience for some. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03785548

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract