Objective: The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. Results: The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very-high-risk features, a new dual-action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options. Conclusion: This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis. Abbreviations: 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxyvitamin D; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ACE = American College of Endocrinology; AFF = atypical femoral fracture; ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; BEL = best evidence level; BMD = bone mineral density; BTM = bone turnover marker; CI = confidence interval; CPG = clinical practice guideline; CTX = C-terminal telopeptide type-I collagen; DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; EL = evidence level; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FRAX® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool; GI = gastrointestinal; HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic acid ONce yearly Pivotal Fracture Trial (zoledronic acid and zoledronate are equivalent terms); ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry; IU = international units; IV = intravenous; LSC = least significant change; NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation; ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw; PINP = serum amino-terminal propeptide of type-I collagen; PTH = parathyroid hormone; R = recommendation; ROI = region of interest; RR = relative risk; SD = standard deviation; TBS = trabecular bone score; VFA = vertebral fracture assessment; WHO = World Health Organization
The use of synthetic mesh to augment vaginal repair procedures for pelvic organ prolapse has increased in large part because of dissatisfaction with the success rates of traditional colporrhaphy. Its use, however, is controversial. Four randomized controlled studies comparing traditional colporrhaphy with vaginal repair using mesh augmentation had conflicting results. This unblinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial investigated whether mesh augmentation during vaginal repair would reduce the rate of recurrent prolapse at 12 months compared with traditional colporrhaphy. A total of 139 women with stage 2 or more prolapse who required both anterior and posterior compartment repair were randomized to mesh augmentation (mesh group, n ϭ 69) or colporrhaphy (no mesh group, n ϭ 70). Study subjects were enrolled between 2003 and 2005 at a tertiary teaching hospital. Prolapse was staged using the pelvic-organ-prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system. The primary study outcome was objective success of surgery defined as the absence of POP-Q stage 2 or more prolapse at 12 months following surgery. Questionnaires were used to assess secondary outcomes including symptoms, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.Of the 139 women, 63 of 69 (93.1%) in the mesh group and 61 of 70 (87.1%) in the no mesh group attended the 12-month follow-up. There was no significant difference at 12 months in objective success (POP-Q stage 0 or 1) between the mesh and no mesh groups (mesh: 81.0% ͓51/63͔ vs. no mesh: 65.6% ͓40/61͔; P ϭ 0.07). Although patients in both groups expressed a high level of satisfaction with the surgery and improved symptoms and parameters of quality of life compared to baseline, there was no statistically significant difference in these outcomes between the 2 groups (P ϭ ns). Postoperative complications in the mesh group included four cases (5.6%) of vaginal mesh exposure. At 12 months, de novo dyspareunia was reported in 27.8% (5/18) of the sexually active women without preoperative dyspareunia in the mesh group and in 41.7% (5/12) of those in the no mesh group. These differences were not significant (P ϭ 0.46).These findings show that anterior and posterior vaginal repair with mesh augmentation at 12 months after surgery does not result in significantly less recurrent prolapse than traditional colporrhaphy. GYNECOLOGY Volume 64, Number 12 OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY ABSTRACTThe presence of myomas can impair fertility. To preserve fertility in women with myomas wanting to become pregnant, myomectomy can be performed with laparotomy, laparoscopy, or hysteroscopy and achieve pregnancy rates of up to 70%. Advantages of laparoscopic techniques compared with laparotomy include shorter hospital stay, more rapid recovery, and less intra-abdominal adhesions. In addition, the overall complication rate is lower. Precise dissection and suturing, however, is especially difficult with traditional laparoscopy for myomas with a deep intramural and/or another unfavorable localization that have a probable impact on fec...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.