Background Second-stage caesarean section with a deeply impacted fetal head is associated with maternal and neonatal complications.Objectives Systematic review and meta-analysis to identify, appraise and synthesise existing evidence that evaluated various techniques of delivering a baby with a deeply impacted head at full-dilation caesarean section. The primary outcome was uterine extension and secondary outcomes were other maternal and neonatal morbidities.Search strategy Online searches of MEDLINE (1946( -January 2015, EMBASE (1950-January 2015, Web of Sciences (1950, and the Cochrane Library databases were performed using a set of relevant keywords.Selection criteria All studies that compared the outcome of various techniques of delivering the baby's head at full-dilation caesarean section.Data collection and analysis Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data collected from each of the studies included variables on the participants, comparisons used, and feto-maternal outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using REVIEW MANAGER 5.3.Main results In total, 12 studies were included. Six studies (n = 455) examined primary outcomes. Meta-analysis showed that the risks of uterine incision extension, infection, mean blood loss, and operative time were significantly higher with the push technique compared with the reverse breech extraction. The evidence to support the Patwardhan method and fetal pillow was inadequate.Authors' conclusions Evidence gathered from observational studies suggests that reverse breech extraction is associated with significantly lower maternal risks compared with the push method.Keywords Impacted fetal head, push method, reverse breech extraction, second-stage caesarean section.Tweetable abstract Meta-analysis suggests reverse breech extraction during caesarean section to deliver impacted fetus is safer.Please cite this paper as: Jeve YB, Navti OB, Konje JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2016;123:337-345.

BackgroundThe human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is recommended for adolescent girls in many European countries, however there is huge variation in vaccine uptake. Methods A mixed methods systematic review to ascertain the level of HPV and HPV vaccine knowledge that exists among European adolescents. Two electronic databases, Ovid Medline and PsychInfo, were searched from origin to September 2014. Meta-analysis was performed for the two primary outcome measures ('have you heard of HPV?' and 'have you heard of the HPV vaccine?'), assessing for the correlation between gender and knowledge. This was supplemented with meta-synthesis for the remaining associations and secondary outcomes. Results 18 papers were included in the final review. Overall European adolescents had poor understanding of basic HPV and HPV vaccine knowledge. Meta-analysis identified that female adolescents are more likely to have heard of HPV (n=2598/5028 girls versus n=1033/3464 boys; OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.86-3.99) and the HPV vaccine (n=1154/2556 girls versus n=392/2074 boys; OR 5.64, 95% CI 2.43-13.07), compared to males. Age, higher education and a positive vaccination status were also associated with increased awareness. There was limited appreciation of more detailed HPV knowledge and uncertainty existed regarding the level of protection offered by the vaccine and the need for cervical screening post vaccination. Conclusions The delivery of HPV education to European adolescents needs to be re-evaluated, since at present there appears to be significant deficiencies in their basic knowledge and understanding of the subject. Increasing HPV knowledge will empower adolescents to make informed choices regarding participation with HPV related cancer prevention health strategies.

The diagnosis of unexplained infertility can be made only after excluding common causes of infertility using standard fertility investigations,which include semen analysis, assessment of ovulation, and tubal patency test. These tests have been selected as they have definitive correlation with pregnancy. It is estimated that a standard fertility evaluation will fail to identify an abnormality in approximately 15% to 30% of infertile couples. The reported incidence of such unexplained infertility varies according to the age and selection criteria in the study population. We conducted a review of the literature via MEDLINE. Articles were limited to English-language, human studies published between 1950 and 2013. Since first coined more than 50 years ago, the term unexplained infertility has been a subject of debate. Although additional investigations are reported to explain or define other causes of infertility, these have high false-positive results and therefore cannot be recommended for routine clinical practice. Couples with unexplained infertility might be reassured that even after 12 months of unsuccessful attempts, 50% will conceive in the following 12 months and another 12% in the year after.

Recurrent miscarriages are postimplantation failures in natural conception; they are also termed as habitual abortions or recurrent pregnancy losses. Recurrent pregnancy loss is disheartening to the couple and to the treating clinician. There has been a wide range of research from aetiology to management of recurrent pregnancy loss. It is one of the most debated topic among clinicians and academics. The ideal management is unanswered. This review is aimed to produce an evidence-based guidance on clinical management of recurrent miscarriage. The review is structured to be clinically relevant. We have searched electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) using different key words. We have combined the searches and arranged them with the hierarchy of evidences. We have critically appraised the evidence to produce a concise answer for clinical practice. We have graded the evidence from level I to V on which these recommendations are based.

Summary Background The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Methods MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m 2 vs ≥35 kg/m 2 ), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. Findings Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54–0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. Interpretation Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in t...