In May 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a Pfizer©-sponsored (Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) RSV vaccine (AbrysvoTM [Pfizer]) for use during pregnancy to prevent neonatal/infant RSV infection. In February of 2022, trials sponsored by GSK© (Brentford, England, UK) on a similar RSVpreF vaccine were halted because of the identification of a safety signal related to preterm births. As these vaccines use identical pre-fusion F-protein technology, we sought to synthesize the existing data on their effectiveness and safety. We identified all randomized controlled trials and used RevMan 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, England, UK) to perform the analysis with 95% confidence intervals and risk ratios (RRs). We found many maternal side effects were more prevalent in the RSVpreF group, with more local reactions, blood disorders, fatigue, joint pain, cardiac disorders, headache, fever, gastrointestinal disorders and pregnancy complications. The vaccinated group demonstrated significant reductions in RSV-lower respiratory tract cases (RR, 0.44 [0.33, 0.57]; P<0.00001), severe respiratory illness (RR, 0.29 [0.19, 0.44]; P<0.00001), and hospitalizations (RR, 0.40 [0.24, 0.67]; P=0.0005). RSVpreF vaccination was associated with a higher incidence of preterm delivery (RR, 1.24 [1.08, 1.44]; P=0.003). No significant difference in neonatal deaths was observed (RR, 1.42 [0.70, 2.89]; P=0.34). In conclusion, RSVpreF vaccination results in systemic adverse events and an increase in preterm delivery. Vaccination appears to have acceptable short-term newborn safety, but is not related to a significant decrease in neonatal death.

In May 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a Pfizer©-sponsored (Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) RSV vaccine (AbrysvoTM [Pfizer]) for use during pregnancy to prevent neonatal/infant RSV infection. In February of 2022, trials sponsored by GSK© (Brentford, England, UK) on a similar RSVpreF vaccine were halted because of the identification of a safety signal related to preterm births. As these vaccines use identical pre-fusion F-protein technology, we sought to synthesize the existing data on their effectiveness and safety. We identified all randomized controlled trials and used RevMan 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, England, UK) to perform the analysis with 95% confidence intervals and risk ratios (RRs). We found many maternal side effects were more prevalent in the RSVpreF group, with more local reactions, blood disorders, fatigue, joint pain, cardiac disorders, headache, fever, gastrointestinal disorders and pregnancy complications. The vaccinated group demonstrated significant reductions in RSV-lower respiratory tract cases (RR, 0.44 [0.33, 0.57]; P<0.00001), severe respiratory illness (RR, 0.29 [0.19, 0.44]; P<0.00001), and hospitalizations (RR, 0.40 [0.24, 0.67]; P=0.0005). RSVpreF vaccination was associated with a higher incidence of preterm delivery (RR, 1.24 [1.08, 1.44]; P=0.003). No significant difference in neonatal deaths was observed (RR, 1.42 [0.70, 2.89]; P=0.34). In conclusion, RSVpreF vaccination results in systemic adverse events and an increase in preterm delivery. Vaccination appears to have acceptable short-term newborn safety, but is not related to a significant decrease in neonatal death.

In May 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a Pfizer©-sponsored (Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) RSV vaccine (AbrysvoTM [Pfizer]) for use during pregnancy to prevent neonatal/infant RSV infection. In February of 2022, trials sponsored by GSK© (Brentford, England, UK) on a similar RSVpreF vaccine were halted because of the identification of a safety signal related to preterm births. As these vaccines use identical pre-fusion F-protein technology, we sought to synthesize the existing data on their effectiveness and safety. We identified all randomized controlled trials and used RevMan 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, England, UK) to perform the analysis with 95% confidence intervals and risk ratios (RRs). We found many maternal side effects were more prevalent in the RSVpreF group, with more local reactions, blood disorders, fatigue, joint pain, cardiac disorders, headache, fever, gastrointestinal disorders and pregnancy complications. The vaccinated group demonstrated significant reductions in RSV-lower respiratory tract cases (RR, 0.44 [0.33, 0.57]; P<0.00001), severe respiratory illness (RR, 0.29 [0.19, 0.44]; P<0.00001), and hospitalizations (RR, 0.40 [0.24, 0.67]; P=0.0005). RSVpreF vaccination was associated with a higher incidence of preterm delivery (RR, 1.24 [1.08, 1.44]; P=0.003). No significant difference in neonatal deaths was observed (RR, 1.42 [0.70, 2.89]; P=0.34). In conclusion, RSVpreF vaccination results in systemic adverse events and an increase in preterm delivery. Vaccination appears to have acceptable short-term newborn safety, but is not related to a significant decrease in neonatal death.

In May 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a Pfizer©-sponsored (Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) RSV vaccine (AbrysvoTM [Pfizer]) for use during pregnancy to prevent neonatal/infant RSV infection. In February of 2022, trials sponsored by GSK© (Brentford, England, UK) on a similar RSVpreF vaccine were halted because of the identification of a safety signal related to preterm births. As these vaccines use identical pre-fusion F-protein technology, we sought to synthesize the existing data on their effectiveness and safety. We identified all randomized controlled trials and used RevMan 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, England, UK) to perform the analysis with 95% confidence intervals and risk ratios (RRs). We found many maternal side effects were more prevalent in the RSVpreF group, with more local reactions, blood disorders, fatigue, joint pain, cardiac disorders, headache, fever, gastrointestinal disorders and pregnancy complications. The vaccinated group demonstrated significant reductions in RSV-lower respiratory tract cases (RR, 0.44 [0.33, 0.57]; P<0.00001), severe respiratory illness (RR, 0.29 [0.19, 0.44]; P<0.00001), and hospitalizations (RR, 0.40 [0.24, 0.67]; P=0.0005). RSVpreF vaccination was associated with a higher incidence of preterm delivery (RR, 1.24 [1.08, 1.44]; P=0.003). No significant difference in neonatal deaths was observed (RR, 1.42 [0.70, 2.89]; P=0.34). In conclusion, RSVpreF vaccination results in systemic adverse events and an increase in preterm delivery. Vaccination appears to have acceptable short-term newborn safety, but is not related to a significant decrease in neonatal death.

In May 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved a Pfizer©-sponsored (Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) RSV vaccine (AbrysvoTM [Pfizer]) for use during pregnancy to prevent neonatal/infant RSV infection. In February of 2022, trials sponsored by GSK© (Brentford, England, UK) on a similar RSVpreF vaccine were halted because of the identification of a safety signal related to preterm births. As these vaccines use identical pre-fusion F-protein technology, we sought to synthesize the existing data on their effectiveness and safety. We identified all randomized controlled trials and used RevMan 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, England, UK) to perform the analysis with 95% confidence intervals and risk ratios (RRs). We found many maternal side effects were more prevalent in the RSVpreF group, with more local reactions, blood disorders, fatigue, joint pain, cardiac disorders, headache, fever, gastrointestinal disorders and pregnancy complications. The vaccinated group demonstrated significant reductions in RSV-lower respiratory tract cases (RR, 0.44 [0.33, 0.57]; P<0.00001), severe respiratory illness (RR, 0.29 [0.19, 0.44]; P<0.00001), and hospitalizations (RR, 0.40 [0.24, 0.67]; P=0.0005). RSVpreF vaccination was associated with a higher incidence of preterm delivery (RR, 1.24 [1.08, 1.44]; P=0.003). No significant difference in neonatal deaths was observed (RR, 1.42 [0.70, 2.89]; P=0.34). In conclusion, RSVpreF vaccination results in systemic adverse events and an increase in preterm delivery. Vaccination appears to have acceptable short-term newborn safety, but is not related to a significant decrease in neonatal death.

Objective: To report a unique surgical procedure that was utilized to locate a missing vibrator in the pelvis of a patient. Emergency room admissions and surgery secondary to the malfunctioning of devices intended for sexual stimulation are extremely common. Emergency room staff of hospitals in the United States usually are skilled in the detection and removal of these devices. Occasionally, surgical intervention is warranted if the device enters a cavity that cannot safely be explored in the emergency room setting. We report a case of a vibrator that was lost during sexual activity. A flat plate X-ray showed it to be in the abdominal cavity. Careful questioning of the patient revealed that the device had an unusually small diameter. Surgical intervention showed that the device ultimately ended up in the bladder without causing traumatic injury. Methods: We created a narrated video to demonstrate the surgical procedure (Canadian Task Force Classification III). Results: Laparoscopy and cystoscopy were used to visualize and successfully remove the device. The patient recovered uneventfully. Conclusion Following laparoscopic confirmation of the location of the device, it was removed via cystoscopy. This case demonstrates how background information, such as the size of the missing device in this case, can be critical to providing high quality patient care.

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.

Objective: To report a unique surgical procedure that was utilized to locate a missing vibrator in the pelvis of a patient. Emergency room admissions and surgery secondary to the malfunctioning of devices intended for sexual stimulation are extremely common. Emergency room staff of hospitals in the United States usually are skilled in the detection and removal of these devices. Occasionally, surgical intervention is warranted if the device enters a cavity that cannot safely be explored in the emergency room setting. We report a case of a vibrator that was lost during sexual activity. A flat plate X-ray showed it to be in the abdominal cavity. Careful questioning of the patient revealed that the device had an unusually small diameter. Surgical intervention showed that the device ultimately ended up in the bladder without causing traumatic injury. Methods: We created a narrated video to demonstrate the surgical procedure (Canadian Task Force Classification III). Results: Laparoscopy and cystoscopy were used to visualize and successfully remove the device. The patient recovered uneventfully. Conclusion Following laparoscopic confirmation of the location of the device, it was removed via cystoscopy. This case demonstrates how background information, such as the size of the missing device in this case, can be critical to providing high quality patient care.

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.