Abstract Introduction Spinal anesthesia combined with sedation and general anesthesia combined with epidural are two techniques often used for patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. There is no consensus that one of these techniques is superior regarding the perception of patients towards the quality of postoperative recovery. This observational cross-sectional study aimed to assess the quality of postoperative recovery in women undergoing open abdominal hysterectomy by comparing both anesthetic techniques. Method We recruited 162 women aged between 30 and 74 years to be submitted to abdominal hysterectomy. The anesthetic technique used followed the preference of the attending anesthesiologist without interference of the investigators. After applying the exclusion criteria, 80 patients underwent spinal anesthesia combined with sedation (Group 1) and 62 women underwent epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia (Group 2). The quality of postoperative recovery was evaluated using the questionnaire Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) completed 24 hours after the end of the surgery. Results Eighty patients in Group 1 answered the QoR-40 questionnaire with an average rating of 179.4 points, median of 186.5, standard deviation of 17.4 and a confidence interval of 3.8. The 60 patients in Group 2 answered the QoR-40 with an average of 174.9 points, median of 178 points, standard deviation of 16 points and a confidence interval of 4.0 (p= 0.024). Conclusion Women who received spinal anesthesia combined with sedation considered quality of postoperative recovery better.

Abstract Introduction Spinal anesthesia combined with sedation and general anesthesia combined with epidural are two techniques often used for patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. There is no consensus that one of these techniques is superior regarding the perception of patients towards the quality of postoperative recovery. This observational cross-sectional study aimed to assess the quality of postoperative recovery in women undergoing open abdominal hysterectomy by comparing both anesthetic techniques. Method We recruited 162 women aged between 30 and 74 years to be submitted to abdominal hysterectomy. The anesthetic technique used followed the preference of the attending anesthesiologist without interference of the investigators. After applying the exclusion criteria, 80 patients underwent spinal anesthesia combined with sedation (Group 1) and 62 women underwent epidural anesthesia combined with general anesthesia (Group 2). The quality of postoperative recovery was evaluated using the questionnaire Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) completed 24 hours after the end of the surgery. Results Eighty patients in Group 1 answered the QoR-40 questionnaire with an average rating of 179.4 points, median of 186.5, standard deviation of 17.4 and a confidence interval of 3.8. The 60 patients in Group 2 answered the QoR-40 with an average of 174.9 points, median of 178 points, standard deviation of 16 points and a confidence interval of 4.0 (p= 0.024). Conclusion Women who received spinal anesthesia combined with sedation considered quality of postoperative recovery better.

Colonization by Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is highly prevalent among pregnant women, with prevalence rates ranging between 4% and 30%. The infection may be transmitted vertically and may result in serious neonatal consequences. In the period from November 2003 to May 2004, a cross-sectional study was carried out among 316 parturients at the Jundiaí Teaching Hospital to establish the prevalence of genital GBS colonization, to identify the factors associated with colonization and the characteristic phenotypes of these streptococci. Samples from rectal and vaginal areas were collected for selective culture in Todd-Hewitt broth. Susceptibility to 7 antimicrobial agents was tested using the antibiotic diffusion disk technique, and the isolated strains were classified using specific antisera. The prevalence of GBS colonization was 14.6%. No strain was resistant to penicillin, ampicillin, erythromycin or nitrofurantoin. The majority of strains were sensitive to cephalothin. Greatest resistance was to gentamicin (76.1%), followed by clindamycin (17.4%). The most frequent serotype was Ib (23.9%), followed by serotypes II and Ia (19.6% and 17.4%, respectively). There was no correlation between serotype and greater antimicrobial resistance. In conclusion, the prevalence of GBS in parturients was high and penicillin continues to be the drug of choice for intrapartum prophylaxis. The most frequent serotype (Ib) found in this study differs from those found in the majority of studies carried out in other countries, revealing the need to identify prevalent serotypes in each region so that specific vaccines can be designed.

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: A vaginose bacteriana vem sendo apontada como fator de risco para prematuridade e outras complicações perinatais. Entretanto, a eficácia do seu tratamento na prevenção destas complicações ainda não está esclarecida. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o impacto do tratamento da vaginose bacteriana durante o pré-natal de baixo risco para a prevenção de prematuridade e outras complicações perinatais. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Coorte retrospectivo observacional, no Departamento de Tocoginecologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp). MÉTODOS: Foram estudadas 785 gestantes de baixo risco com resultado da bacterioscopia de secreção vaginal. Foram identificados três grupos de mulheres: 580 sem vaginose bacteriana durante a gestação, 134 com vaginose bacteriana tratada com imidazólicos (metronidazol, tinidazol, ou secnidazol) durante a gestação, e 71 com vaginose bacteriana não tratada durante a gestação. O diagnóstico de vaginose bacteriana foi realizado utilizando os critérios de Nugent na bacterioscopia vaginal da primeira consulta. RESULTADOS: O parto prematuro ocorreu em 5,5% do grupo de mulheres sem vaginose bacteriana, 22,5% do grupo com vaginose bacteriana não tratada, e 3,7% do grupo com vaginose bacteriana tratada. A razão de risco para as complicações perinatais no grupo com vaginose bacteriana não tratada durante a gestação foi: 7,5 (intervalo de confiança, IC, de 95%: 1,9-34,9) para rotura prematura de membranas no pré-termo, 3,4 (IC de 95%: 1,4-8,1) para trabalho de parto prematuro, 6,0 (IC de 95%: 1,9-19,7) para parto prematuro e 4,2 (IC de 95%: 1,2-14,3) para baixo peso ao nascer. CONCLUSÃO: O tratamento da vaginose bacteriana reduziu significativamente os índices de prematuridade e outras complicações perinatais entre as gestantes de baixo risco, independentemente da história prévia de parto prematuro.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Bacterial vaginosis has been associated with prematurity and other perinatal complications. However, the efficacy of the treatment for preventing such complications has not yet been well established. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of treatment for bacterial vaginosis on a low-risk population of Brazilian pregnant women, in order to prevent prematurity and other perinatal complications. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational retrospective cohort study, at the Obstetric and Gynecology Department, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp). METHODS: Vaginal bacterioscopy results from 785 low-risk pregnant women were studied. Three different groups of women were identified: 580 without bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy, 134 with bacterial vaginosis treated using imidazoles (metronidazole, tinidazole, or secnidazole) during pregnancy, and 71 with bacterial vaginosis not treated during pregnancy. The diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis was based on Nugent's criteria, from the vaginal bacterioscopy performed during the first prenatal care visit. RESULTS: The frequency of prematurity was 5.5% among the women without bacterial vaginosis, 22.5% among those with untreated bacterial vaginosis and 3.7% among those with treated bacterial vaginosis. The risk ratios for perinatal complications were significantly higher in the group with untreated bacterial vaginosis: premature rupture of membranes, 7.5 (95% CI: 1.9-34.9); preterm labor, 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4-8.1); preterm birth, 6.0 (95% CI: 1.9-19.7); and low birth weight, 4.2 (95% CI: 1.2-14.3). CONCLUSION: The treatment of bacterial vaginosis significantly reduced the rates of prematurity and other perinatal complications among these low-risk Brazilian pregnant women, regardless of the history of previous preterm delivery.