Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

Jaksot

• 
  General Anesthesia and PP Mood Disorders 15.09.2026 25min

  If you’ve been following health and medical headlines over the past few weeks, you’ve likely seen a renewed and urgent conversation around postpartum depression—a condition that affects millions of new mothers worldwide, often with devastating consequences. While we’ve long understood that postpartum depression is deeply multifactorial—shaped by a complex web of hormonal shifts, psychological stressors, and socio-economic factors—a compelling wave of new data points to a key physical variable that might be playing a far bigger role than we previously realized: how we manage pain during cesarean deliveries. Specifically, emerging studies are highlighting a striking potential association between the use of general anesthesia during C-sections and a higher risk of subsequent postpartum depression compared to neuraxial options like epidurals or spinal blocks. Why would the choice of anesthetic in the operating room ripple into neurochemical changes weeks or months later? In today’s episode, we’re going to dive deep into this latest data. We’ll break down what the numbers actually tell us, examine the clinical nuances, and explore the potential biological and neuroendocrine mechanisms of action—from acute inflammatory cascades to neurotransmitter disruption—that could explain this link.1. Oh TK, Song IA. Neuraxial versus General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery and the Risk of Postpartum Depression: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2026 Jun 3:101871. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2026.101871. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42242358.2. Fagan JJ, Dufour SI, Duet SJ, Downs EM, Siddaiah H, Viswanath O, Shekoohi S, Kaye AD. Influence of Neuraxial Anesthesia Technique During Vaginal and Cesarean Delivery and Association with Postpartum Depression: A Narrative Review of Literature. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2026 Apr 14;22:579920.3. Guglielminotti J, Monk C, Russell MT, Li G. Association of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery with Postpartum Depression and Suicidality. Anesth Analg. 2025 Sep 1;141(3):618-628. 4. Xie SC, Liu CH, Hung YT. Association between postpartum depression and anaesthesia methods in women undergoing caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2026 Jan 1;43(1):66-73. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002252. Epub 2025 Aug 6. PMID: 40771157.
• 
  MS and Pregnancy (Sept 2026 Expert Review) 12.09.2026 27min

  MS is a complex polygenic disease with over 200 associated genetic variants. The risk of an offspring developing MS if one parent is affected is relatively low at 2% to 3% (though maternal transmission shows slightly higher heritability), with some possible epigenetic influences. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society reports that up to 4 times as many women have MS as men. The average age at MS diagnosis is around 30 years. Studies show this ratio has grown over the past several decades; in the mid-20th century, the ratio was roughly 2:1, but the proportion of affected females has steadily increased due to a combination of environmental, hormonal, and diagnostic factors. MS does not impair natural fertility, so OB providers should be aware of the effect of pregnancy on MS and vice verse. In this episode, we will review a brand new (as of Aug 8, 2026) expert review on the subject which was published in the AJOG. Over the last decade, clinical guidance has shifted from advising women with MS to avoid pregnancy to a more active and permissive stance, largely due to the advent of new pharmacological and biologic therapies. Listen in for details. 1. Balshi A, et al. Management of Multiple Sclerosis During Pregnancy and the Reproductive Years in 2026: An Expert Clinical Review, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2026), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2026.08.043.
• 
  What Defines “Refractory” HTN for Preterm sPreE Delivery? 09.09.2026 18min

  The ACOG PB 222 states, “In women with preeclampsia with severe features at less than 34 0/7 weeks of gestation, with stable maternal and fetal condition, expectant management may be considered”. The expectant management of preeclampsia with severe features before 34 0/7 weeks of gestation is based on strict selection criteria of those appropriate candidates and is best accomplished in a setting with resources appropriate for maternal and neonatal care. BOX 4 in that ACOG guidance lists “Conditions Precluding Expectant management”, with one of the conditions being “Uncontrolled severe-range blood pressures (persistent systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or more or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or more not responsive to antihypertensive medication” (i.,e. persistent and refractory to appropriate medication). But what defines “uncontrolled hypertension”? When is preterm delivery indicated based on that feature? In this episode, we will answer this real-world clinical question. So, for a patient who is otherwise stable, asymptomatic, without HELLP syndrome, whose fetus is stable but is under 34 weeks, when can “uncontrolled hypertension” be diagnosed to prompt delivery? Listen in for details as we highlight the 2022 SMFM Special Report on that matter. 1. ACOG PB 2222. SMFM Special report: Preeclampsia: a report and recommendations of the workshop of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Preeclampsia Foundation, Nov 20223. De Backer J, Haugaa KH, Hasselberg NE, et al. 2025 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Cardiovascular Disease and Pregnancy. European Heart Journal. 20254. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of the Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Executive Summary; No. 307, May 20145. ISSHP (2018): The hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis & management recommendations for international practice. Preg Hypertension. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.isshp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/1-s2.0-S2210778918301260-main.pdf
• 
  The Cerebellum (TCD) as EGA Referee 06.09.2026 18min

  So, here is a not uncommon situation: A new OB patient presents for initial prenatal care at 28 weeks by “sure LMP” but her ultrasound EGA is just over 3 weeks behind. Simple redating, right? How can we be assured that we are not missing FGR? That is where the “ancillary” use of transcerebellar diameter (TCD) plays a role. In this episode, we will highlight the recent JUNE 2026 data on this and review the 4 scenarios when this supplemental ultrasound finding can play a vital role. 1. Fetal Transcerebellar Diameter Measurement With Particular Emphasis in the Third Trimester: A Reliable Predictor of Gestational Age. AJOG. 2004. 2. Elgadi A, Wagealla M, Idris E, Eissa AYH, Altraifi S, Altraifi H, Abdallah E, Noorallah T, AbdAlla E. Accuracy of Ultrasonographic Transcerebellar Diameter for Gestational Age Estimation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2026 Jun 17.3. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date.Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017. 4. Arzik IG, Golbasi H, Can ST, Aktas HA, Cakir ZE, Purut CS, Torun R, Toka I, Oztataroglu C, Ekin A. Role of Transcerebellar Diameter in Estimating Gestational Age in the Third Trimester: A Comparative Analysis in Fetuses With Different Growth Patterns. J Ultrasound Med. 2026 Apr;45(4):895-903.
• 
  Parkland Universal LDA (162mg) Preg Study 03.09.2026 21min

  Today we are diving into a topic that is incredibly close to my heart—one that has the potential to fundamentally change how we approach prenatal care and protect pregnant patients. We’re talking about low-dose aspirin for the prevention of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Now, if you follow current formal guidelines, you probably know the standard protocol: 81 milligrams a day, prescribed based on specific risk factors. But there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting we might be underdosing—and under-prescribing. What if 162 milligrams taken universally across the board is actually far more effective?In today’s episode, we’re unpacking a brand-new, groundbreaking study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. And I’m especially excited to cover this one because it comes straight out of my alma mater, Parkland Hospital! This study takes a bold look at real-world outcomes by comparing a period of universal 162-milligram aspirin use directly against a historical period when aspirin wasn’t recommended at all. Did a higher, universal dose significantly cut down on hypertensive disorders? And just as importantly …were there any adverse safety events we need to be aware of? Grab your coffee, settle in, and let's get into the details.1. Duryea E, Ambia A, Pruszynski J. et al. Universal Aspirin Dispensation for Prevention of Preeclampsia in a High-Risk Population. AJOG, 2026; ePub 8/27/282. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;122(5):1122-1131. 3. ACOG Issues Updated Hypertension Guidance, Discusses New ACC/AHA Criteria (2018): https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2018/12/acog-issues-updated-hypertension-guidance4. Low-Dose Aspirin Use During Pregnancy, ACOG Committee Opinion Number 743 (2018)5. Low-Dose Aspirin Use for the Prevention of Preeclampsia and Related Morbidity and Mortality. ACOG Practice Advisory; December 2021
• 
  “Resolved” Early FGR: Now What? 31.08.2026 24min

  Today, we are tackling a massive grey area in obstetrics/maternal-fetal medicine: What happens after early fetal growth restriction resolves? When a baby bounces back on the growth chart during the second or third trimester, are they completely out of the woods? Or is there a hidden, lingering risk we aren’t talking about enough? To find out, we’re doing a deep dive into two major publications that dropped just this month, in August 2026 in sister journals (AJOG and AJOG MFM). Both are retrospective, both ask the exact same burning question…and get this: they arrive at completely opposing conclusions. How is that possible? Listen in for details. 1. Melamed B, Mei-Dan E, Aviram A. Sonographic fetal weight estimation percentiles should be interpreted with caution in the second trimester. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026 May;173(2):930-939. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.70693. Epub 2025 Nov 25. PMID: 41288086.2. Ramos SZ, Has P, Gimovsky AC, Danilack VA, Savitz DA, Lewkowitz AK. Outcomes among Neonates after a Diagnosis of Persistent or Transient Fetal Growth Restriction Delivered at Term. Am J Perinatol. 2024 May;41(S 01):e1470-e1477. doi: 10.1055/a-2051-3859. Epub 2023 Mar 9. Erratum in: Am J Perinatol. 2024 May;41(S 01):e1478. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1786526. PMID: 36894159; PMCID: PMC10562520.3. Keller N, Jackson F, Abelman S .Neonatal morbidity following resolution of fetal growth restriction diagnosed at second-trimester anatomy ultrasound. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, 2026; Aug 8. 4. Cenac LA, Wodoslawsky S, Patel V, McLaren Jr. R, Aghai ZH, Makhamreh MM, Al-Kouatly HB, Persistent, Resolved, and Absent Fetal Growth Restriction: A Comparison of Neonatal Outcomes, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2026), doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2026. Aug 19
• 
  New CPG on OB CERCLAGE (Sept 2026) 28.08.2026 26min

  The word CERCLAGE comes from the French word, cercle, meaning "hooping" or "encirclement". Cerclage was traditionally reserved for cervical insufficiency but is now a recognized option for patients with a history of preterm birth and a short cervix noted on ultrasound between 16-24 weeks. There are three (3) main indications for obstetrical, cervical cerclage: History-Based, Ultrasound-Based, and Physical- Exam Based. In this episode, we will summarize the key takeaways from the new ACOG CPG on OBSTETRICAL CERCLAGE, being released in September 2026.1. ACOG CPG, Obstertrical Cerclage, Sept 20262. ACOG Practice Bulletin #234: Prediction and Prevention of Spontaneous Preterm Birth, 2021
• 
  New CPU on OPS! 25.08.2026 20min

  As of August 20th, 2026, the ACOG has released an updated Clinical Practice Update on opportunistic salpingectomy. Here’s why this matters so much: we now know that the vast majority of high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancers actually start not in the ovaries, but in the fallopian tubes. By removing those tubes during routine pelvic, obstetric, or even non-gynecologic abdominal surgeries, we aren't just performing standard procedures—we are drastically cutting the lifetime risk of epithelial ovarian cancer by up to 78%. Today, we’re breaking down what’s inside ACOG’s latest guidance, how surgical practices are shifting, and why this simple step is saving lives. Let’s dive in!"1. ACOG CPU (Aug 20, 2026): https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2026/08/acog-strengthens-recommendations-supporting-salpingectomy-ovarian-cancer-prevention2. ACOG CO 774: Opportunistic Salpingectomy as a Strategy for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Prevention (2019, reaffirmed 2024)
• 
  Vag Miso vs Vag Dino: New Meta-analysis (Aug 2026) 22.08.2026 15min

  ACOG recommends the use of oral or vaginal misoprostol, vaginal dinoprostone (either gel or insert), or mechanical methods for cervical ripening. Plus, it states, “Combination methods (pharmacologic and mechanical) are also effective”. The July 2026 ACOG CPG 9 states this regarding vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: “Vaginal dinoprostone is effective for cervical ripening; however, vaginal misoprostol has higher efficacy and less need for oxytocin augmentation. The Cochrane database systematic review in 2010 that compared vaginal misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone in 38 trials (7,022 participants) showed a lower rate of failure to achieve vaginal delivery in 24 hours (RR 0.77) and reduced need for oxytocin augmentation with misoprostol (RR 0.68). There were no differences in the rates of cesarean delivery or tachysystole with FHR changes”. Now, as of August 19, 2026, a new meta-analysis from BJOG is examining this comparison (vaginal miso vs vaginal dino) again. Did they find the same thing? Listen in for details. 1. G. Andersson, B. Greenfield, A. Hunt, et al., “ Vaginal Misoprostol Compared to Vaginal Dinoprostone for Induction of Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (2026): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70314.2. ACOG Clinical Practice Guideline No. 9: Cervical Ripening in Pregnancy
• 
  Estrogen’s Protection Against Breast CA: The Underappreciated Data 19.08.2026 17min

  Today, we are taking a deep dive into a medical truth thatsounds completely counterintuitive, almost upside down, based on everything you think you know about women's health. But here’s the kicker: it’s actually nothing new at all. For over two decades, ever since the landmark Women’sHealth Initiative (WHI) study made global headlines back in 2002, the blanket narrative surrounding menopausal hormone therapy has been clear and persistent: hormones equal breast cancer risk. But there is a massive asterisk in thatscience that got completely lost in the media noise. While combination therapy with conjugated equine estrogens paired with medroxyprogesterone acetate (CEE +MPA) did show an increased risk, the story for estrogen-only therapy (mainly CEE) in women wh had a hysterectomy is entirely different. In fact, an overwhelming mountain of growing data shows that estrogen-only therapy is protectiveagainst both breast cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality. In this episode, we’re unpacking the latest high-level evidence that cements this crucial distinction. We'll examine the broad statistical landscape, including a comprehensive meta-analysis by Qing et al. (officially set for the December 2026 issue of Annals of Medicine, following its ahead-of-print release in March 2026). Their work breaks down how randomized controlled trial data consistentlypoint to estrogen-only therapy having a protective effect, in stark contrast to combination therapy. We'll also dive into a brand-new Clinical Perspective published in mid-August 2026 in Obstetrics & Gynecology (the Green Journal) by Drs. Andrew Kaunitz and Jason Wright. They call urgent attention to this phenomenon, highlighting RCT meta-analyses that demonstrate a 23% reduction in breast cancer incidence with estrogen alone (RR = 0.77), alongside striking cohort data showing a dramatic risk reduction even in high-risk populations, like carriers of the BRCA mutation.  Listenin for details.1.     Wu Q, Shen L, Hu S, Yang R, Wang Y, Xue D, SunY, Ma H, Dai Z. Relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and incidencerisk of breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med. 2026Dec;58(1):2640244. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2026.2640244. Epub 2026 Mar.2.     Kaunitz, Wright. Menopausal Estrogen Therapy andRisk of Breast Cancer. Obstet Gynecol. Aug 20263.     Chlebowski RT, Aragaki AK, Pan K, et al.Randomized Trials of Estrogen-Alone and Breast Cancer Incidence: AMeta-Analysis. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2024. 4.     Writing Group for the Women's Health InitiativeInvestigators. (2002). Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthypostmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women's Health Initiativerandomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(3), 321–333.
• 
  SC v IV Insulin Intrapartum 16.08.2026 26min

  Historically, continuous intravenous (IV) insulin infusions were established as the standard of care for pregestational diabetes (Type 1 and Type 2 DM) during labor to prevent acute intrapartum hyperglycemia and minimize the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. Intravenous insulin offers rapid titration, immediate onset, and a short half-life, allowing precise real-time glycemic control during the physiological stress and fluctuating metabolic demands of labor. Maintaining euglycemia intrapartum is emphasized because elevated maternal blood glucose levels cross the placenta, inducing fetal hyperinsulinemia, which acutely increases the risk of severe post-delivery neonatal hypoglycemia, which can be problematic. Although IV insulin protocols are widely used and are recommended in many practice guidelines, the evidence supporting their superiority over other approaches is limited. Subcutaneous (SC) insulin administration represents a potential alternative strategy to intrapartum glucose management. Continuation of SC insulin, including insulin pump therapy, has been studied most extensively among individuals with type 1 diabetes. However, evidence guiding intrapartum insulin management remains limited for patients with gestational or type 2 diabetes, who represent the majority of pregnancies complicated by diabetes. Institutional protocols frequently default to IV insulin despite limited comparative evidence with SC insulin and the increased workflow burden associated with infusion-based management. Now, a new retrospective study published in SMFM’s PREGANCY journal (25 July 2026; Seattle, Washington) is looking to give routine intrapartum SC insulin some validity. What did the data show? Listen in for details. 1. Savitsky, L.M., Barr, C., Katz, R., Martinez, N., Henderson, J., Saleh, T., White, L. and Simmons, L. (2026), Streamlining intrapartum glycemic control: Subcutaneous insulin for intrapartum diabetes management. Pregnancy, 2: e70371. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmf2.70371
• 
  Intro to REVI EXTEND IMPLANT (Not a sponsor) 12.08.2026 12min

  Urge urinary incontinence (UUI) places a significant emotional and physical burden on women affected. Sacral neuromodulation has been and remains a well-established implant-based therapy for UUI. The concept originated in the early 1970s from sacral anterior root stimulation research for neurogenic bladder, with human clinical trials beginning in 1982. Medtronic's InterStim device received FDA approval in 1997 for UUI, and in 1999 for urgency-frequency and nonobstructive urinary retention. This was a game changer for affected women. Now, as of August 5, 2026, the FDA has granted 510(k) clearance for a new, less invasive neuromodulation implant- placed in the ANKLE. This is the Revi Extend Implant system (BlueWind Medical). What was the phase 3 data on this? What does the “wearable controller device” look like? Listen in for details. 1. Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592–1604. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.121372. Amundsen CL, Sutherland SE, Heesakkers JPFA, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety of Revi implantable tibial neuromodulation from the pivotal OASIS study. J Urol. 2026;216(2):219-229. doi:10.1097/JU.00000000000050623. BlueWind Medical receives FDA 510(k) clearance for Revi Extend implant. News release. BlueWind Medical Ltd. August 5, 2026. Accessed August 5, 2026. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260805290667/en/BlueWind-Medical-Receives-FDA-510k-Clearance-for-Revi-Extend-Implant
• 
  The QBL Paradox: Precision vs. Performance in OB Hemorrhage 09.08.2026 18min

  Today, we are taking a deep dive into an intervention that almost every labor and delivery unit in North America has adopted over the last decade: Quantitative Blood Loss, or QBL. ACOG first recommended quantitative blood loss assessment in Committee Opinion Number 794, published in December 2019. This opinion recommended that every birthing facility implement a standardized, quantitative method for measuring cumulative blood loss at all deliveries, replacing visual estimation as the default approach. This built on earlier ACOG efforts, including the 2015 reVITALize initiative, which standardized obstetric data definitions and defined postpartum hemorrhage using cumulative measured blood loss thresholds (≥1,000 mL regardless of delivery route, or blood loss accompanied by signs/symptoms of hypovolemia). We’ve all weighed sponges, measured calibrated drapes, and run the math. But here’s the million-dollar question: Does measuring blood loss accurately, on its own, actually improve outcomes for patients? The answer is YES….and NO at the same time. Listen in for details as we discuss new data (July 2026 in AJOG) on this topic. 1. White A, Burns RN, Pruszynski JE, Ravindra D, Fin KX, Montgomery T, Jestes E, Ambia AM, Anyaehie B, Duryea EL. Establishing Normal Blood Loss Thresholds at the Time of Delivery Based on Quantitative Blood Loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026 Jul. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2026.07.028. S0002-9378(26)00395-9. YMOB 16849.2. Quantitative Blood Loss in Obstetric Hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, Number 794.Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019. Committee on Obstetric Practice3. Coomarasamy A, Devall AJ, Bell S, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Race Against Time. Lancet. 2026.
• 
  Routine US for RPOC After 2nd Trimester Loss? 05.08.2026 16min

  Today, we’re stepping into one of the most clinicallydelicate and emotionally heavy scenarios you can encounter in women's healthcare: a mid-pregnancy loss, say right around that 18 to 20-week mark. It’s a situation where the clinical room feels still, the emotional weight is immense, and every decision you make as a clinician carries profound gravity. Picture the scenario: The delivery has occurred. Both the fetus and the placenta have delivered, and upon gross visual examination on the delivery tray, the placenta appears intact. The immediate crisis of delivery has passed. But as theattending provider, you’re now standing at a critical management fork in the road. Do you routinely order an ultrasound before discharge to confirm the uterine cavity is truly clear? Or do you take a selective, symptom-driven approach, reserving uterine US imaging for patients who present with post-delivery warning signs like unexpected hemorrhage, severe pain, or fever? It sounds like a straightforward question, but in practice, it sparks intensedebate. Listen in, as we review professional society guidelines and the latest published data.1.     Fox CE, et al. Mid‐trimester Pregnancy Loss GuidelineConsensus Panel. Triage and care for women with symptoms or diagnosis of pregnancy loss between 14 + 0 and 21 + 6 weeks' gestation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026 Jan;172(1):25-50. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.70621. 2.     Incognito GG, et al. Ultrasound Assessment ofRetained Products of Conception (RPOC): Insights from the Current Literature. J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 19;14(16):5864. doi: 10.3390/jcm14165864. 3.     ACOG PB 135: Second Trimester Abortion4.     Sundararajan S, Roy S, Polanski LT. The accuracyof ultrasound scan in diagnosing retained products of conception: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 May;230(5):512-531.e3.  
• 
  A Mechanic’s Vision: The OdonAssist™ Device (Not Ready for US Approval) 02.08.2026 16min

  Today, I want to tell you a story that sounds like it was completely made up for a movie script, but it’s 100% real. Imagine an automotive mechanic in Argentina. He has zero medical training, no background in obstetrics, and no clinical degree. One night, he sees a simple party trick on YouTube: how to get a lost cork out of the inside of an empty wine bottle using nothing more than an inflated plastic bag. Most people would laugh, finish their glass of wine, and move on. But this mechanic, Jorge Odón, looked at that plastic bag and had a radical thought: Could this same basic physics principle be used to safely deliver a trapped baby during second-stage labor? Fast forward through years of engineering refinements, global partnerships, and early clinical pilots, and we get the Odón device- or OdonAssist™. It is, without a doubt, one of the most creative and innovative mechanical concepts to hit the field of operative vaginal delivery in generations. Instead of rigid metal blades applying direct compression, or high-pressure suction cups on the scalp, it uses an inflatable pneumatic cuff wrapped inside a lubricated, double-layered polyethylene sleeve. The inner layer grips the fetal vertex, while the outer layer glides smoothly against the vaginal walls, replacing high friction with plastic-on-plastic sliding action. But, and this is a big "but", as clinicians, we don't practice medicine based on good ideas or clever engineering alone. We practice based on rigorous, reproducible evidence on efficacy and safety. And that’s where the narrative gets complicated. Although the device recently secured CE mark approval in Europe, it is not FDA approved in the United States. Why? Because despite nearly two decades of development, it is still facing a major shortage of large-scale Phase 3 comparative data (non-inferiority data). And the data it does have is not quite as impressive as its design would imply. Listen in for details. 1. Mottet N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the OdonAssist inflatable device for assisted vaginal birth: the BESANCON ASSIST study. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2023; 230, S947-S9582. Hotton EJ, Lenguerrand E, Wade J, et al. The OdonAssist inflatable device for assisted vaginal birth—the ASSIST II study (United Kingdom). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3S):S932-S946.e3.3. https://www.mnhi.com/odonassist (CE approval)\4. ACOG PB 219; 2020.
• 
  When Data Gaps Exist: OB HSV Suppression? 30.07.2026 12min

  ACOG first recommended antiviral suppressive therapy at 36 weeks of gestation for women with a history of genital herpes in 2007, with the publication of Practice Bulletin No. 82 ("Management of Herpes in Pregnancy," June 2007). This was the first ACOG practice bulletin specifically dedicated to genital herpes management in pregnancy, and it established the 36-week suppressive therapy recommendation based on the RCTs available at that time (including the Watts 2003, Sheffield 2006, and Andrews 2006 trials). The recommendation was subsequently reaffirmed and updated in Practice Bulletin No. 220, published in May 2020, which is the current version. However, these trials had patients who ultimately delivered at/after 38 weeks. In a patient with a history of genital HSV for whom suppression is recommended but who will have a medically indicated delivery at 37 weeks, say for a hypertension disorder of pregnancy, is 36 week initiation of HSV antiviral medication enough time for suppression? There is a gap in high quality data on this. In this episode, we will review the published data and reach a clinical decision as to whether one week suppression is enough, or if initiation earlier is reasonable. 1. ACOG PB 822. ACOG PB 220
• 
  (MIPI) Multidose Ibuprofen Prior to IUD? 27.07.2026 21min

  Today, we’re diving straight into a topic that hits close to home for millions of patients and providers alike: IUD insertion pain, and more importantly, how we can actually make it better. Now, if you’ve been practicing or following clinical guidelines for a while, you know the frustrating backstory here. For years, the standard advice was simple: "Just take 800 milligrams of ibuprofen an hour before your appointment." But a 2015 double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial showed that taking a single dose of 800 mg within an hour before insertion did not relieve procedural pain. That was published in the journal Contraception in 2015. This left clinicians wishing for better options. Fast forward to 2024, when the CDC updated its guidelines to formally recommend local analgesia, like lidocaine blocks or topical use, to help manage insertion pain. That was a huge, long-overdue win for patient-centered care. But local numbing isn't the only tool we should be looking at. What if the issue with oral NSAIDs wasn't the medication itself, but how and when we dosed it? That brings us to a brand-new study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG), August 2026. Researchers looked at a preemptive, multidose ibuprofen regimen- starting the day before insertion to reach sustained, therapeutic blood levels ahead of time. And the results? They offer some new insights into how we can stack our pain control strategies. So, let's break down what this study found, how it builds on our CDC guidance, and what it means for our clinical practice starting at our next IUD placement. Let’s jump in. 1. Bednarek PH, Creinin MD, Reeves MF, et al. Contraception. 2015;91(3):193–197.2. Ouyang C, Lamvu G, Quach H, et al. Multidose Ibuprofen Prior to Intrauterine device insertion (MIPI): a triple blinded randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, August 2026; 235, 330-3373. Management of Premenstrual Disorders: ACOG Clinical Practice Guideline No.7 Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023. Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines–Gynecology4. McKenna KA, Fogleman CD. Dysmenorrhea.American Family Physician. 2021.
• 
  Ferritin at iOB: Told Ya! (Aug 2026 Data) 24.07.2026 16min

  Podcast family, we pride ourselves on this show on being avant-garde and forward thinking on the topics we choose. For example, on February the 20th, 2026, we released an episode called “New Data: Screen Maternal Ferritin with Prenatal Care?” In that episode we reviewed a publication from the previous month (January 2026) that was released in Lancet Hematology. This study made the case for screening for early iron deficiency, even without anemia, with serum ferritin at the initiation of prenatal care. This was a multicenter, 2-arm, randomized controlled trial. Earlier identification of low serum ferritin prevented iron deficiency anemia in the third trimester. That's a win! Back then, we also stated how Australia has been leading the charge on this with the Australian HOW. That stands for Hematology in Obstetrics and Women's Health. This Australian consensus committee now recommends screening for iron deficiency, not just iron deficiency anemia, at the initiation of prenatal care, at 24 to 28 weeks, and then again at the third trimester when necessary. And now, as of August 2026, we have additional supportive data that including serum ferritin at the initial OB visit is evidence-based and best for the patient! In this episode we will review this brand-new, prospective cohort study published as a Research Letter in the AJOG August 2026.1. Australian HOW: Iron optimisation in pregnancy: a Haematology in Obstetric and Women's Health Collaborative consensus statement; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imj.166022. Konecke N, Jackson T, Angeles I. et al. The association between first trimester iron deficiency without anemia and the development of iron-deficiency anemia prior to childbirth. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2026; 235, e36-e383. ACOG Clinical Practice Update: An Update to Clinical Guidance for Delayed Umbilical Cord Clamping After Birth in Preterm Neonates. Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Jul 24;146(3):442-444.
• 
  IUDs Cause Uterine Adhesions & Infertility? 21.07.2026 16min

  If you’ve scrolled through your feeds recently, you’ve probably seen the video that’s causing a stir: a prominent infertility doctor sharing her “Hot Take” personal observations on social media, claiming that IUDs are a hidden cause of intrauterine adhesions- or severe uterine scar tissue. Now, Listen. It is completely natural to see a specialist standing in a white coat making a passionate claim and think, "Wow, should I be worried about my birth control?" But here is the reality we need to establish right out of the gate: a handful of individual cases shared online is the very definition of anecdotal evidence. It does not fulfill the criteria of rigorous scientific observation. When we pull back from the algorithm and look at the actual clinical data involving millions of IUD users worldwide, the science shows us something completely different. In fact, large-scale studies demonstrate that IUDs do not cause this scarring—and historically, certain models have actually been used to prevent the uterine walls from sticking together during post-surgical healing. So today, we are separating the scrolling panic from the actual science. We have REA data from the recent FACT (Fertility After Contraceptive Termination) study from 2021 (AJOG). We’re breaking down what the data really says, why the internet loves a medical scare, and the true, proven causes of intrauterine adhesions. 1. Abel MK, Wald K, Cedars MI, Noel M. Uterine Synechiae After Intrauterine Device Use: A Case Series. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2021. 2. Chung E, Wang F, Zhang J, Strug M, Aghajanova L, Lathi R. The impact of prior hormonal intrauterine device (IUD) use on endometrial lining thickness in the fertility clinic setting: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2026 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s10815-026-03950-x. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42347902.3. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Schreiber CA, Teal S, Turok DK, Natavio M, Cordon S, Daggy J. Intrauterine device use, sexually transmitted infections, and fertility: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug;225(2):157.e1-157.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.011. Epub 2021 Mar 11. PMID: 33716075.
• 
  Rescue ACS with PPROM? 18.07.2026 20min

  Antenatal corticosteroids are a MAJOR win in the management of preterm labor. An initial course of antenatal corticosteroids has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes. For patients who remain undelivered after the initial course of antenatal corticosteroids, it is uncertain whether a booster course of antenatal corticosteroids reduces neonatal morbidity or increases the infection risk. The ACOG, in its current guidance, has concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to make a recommendation. Corticosteroids, especially at the doses given, are also powerful immunosuppressants. When you administer that first course, you accept a minor, calculated risk for a massive, proven benefit. But when you introduce a second course of steroids into a uterine environment that has already been ruptured and exposed to vaginal flora for weeks, you are pouring fuel on the fire. PLUS, the environment for the fetus with prolonged preterm prelabor rupture of membranes is unique. PPPROM, the chronic exposure to ruptured membranes and the resultant oligohydramnios is theorized to trigger a kind of stress response in the fetus- so the baby may make their own endogenous corticosteroid flare. So, rescue steroids after an initial course of steroids in PPROM cases has remained controversial but we have updated data that has provided new insights. In this episode, we will highlight an RCT from 2023 and a more recent systematic review and meta-analysis from May 2026 on this very subject. Listen in for details. 1. Garite TJ, Kurtzman J, Maurel K, Clark R; Obstetrix Collaborative Research Network. Impact of a 'rescue course' of antenatal corticosteroids: a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;200(3):248.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.021. Erratum in: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Oct;201(4):428. PMID: 19254583.2. Tenbrink E, Quain A, Rone V, Harris K, Hadley E, Haas D, Shanks A. Risk of Neonatal Sepsis With Rescue Steroids in Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Cureus. 2023 Apr 6;15(4):e37207. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37207. PMID: 37159785; PMCID: PMC10163895.3. Melamed N, Murphy KE, Pylypjuk C, et al. Timingof Antenatal Corticosteroid Administration and Neonatal Outcomes. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(5):e2511315. 4. Porreco R, Garite TJ, Combs CA, Maurel K, Huls CK, Baker S, Fortner KB, Longo SA, Nageotte M, Lewis D, Tran L; Obstetrix Collaborative Research Network. Booster course of antenatal corticosteroids after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a double-blind randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023 May;5(5):100896. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100896. Epub 2023 Feb 14. PMID: 36796641.5. Da Costa Y, Ramanathan V, Oliveira JA, Brito J, Yousif A. Repeat versus Single Course of Antenatal Corticosteroid in Management of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2026 May;43(7):925-932. doi: 10.1055/a-2708-5314. Epub 2025 Oct 9. PMID: 41067234