Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

Epizodai

• 
  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
• 
  Bakri Shortened In-Utero Time: An RCT (July 2026) 15.07.2026 13min

  The Bakri Postpartum Balloon was described and first used clinically in 1999 by Dr. Younes N. Bakri (Georgia, USA). It is intended to treat postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). In the United States, it received its first major FDA clearance (via 510(k) for commercial marketing) on April 17, 2002. Manufacturer guidelines for the Bakri (Cook Medical) state that the balloon may be left indwelling for a maximum of 24 hours, but the determination of removal time is left to the clinician once “bleeding is controlled and the patient is stable.” However, the optimal duration of intrauterine balloon tamponade placement remains unclear. One retrospective cohort study from AJOG (Einerson et al) of 274 women found no significant difference in PPH outcomes when intrauterine balloon tamponade was left in place for 2–12 hours, compared with more than 12 hours. However, only 30 women had the intrauterine balloon tamponade placement for 10 hours or less. And remember, this was not a prospective trial looking at a minimum of 2 hours, 2 hours was just the lower margin of the “short duration” group. Now, a new RCT (with authors from Denver and Vermont) published in the July 2026 Green Journal provides new data. In this first of its kind pragmatic, randomized trial of noninferiority, a 6-hour duration of intrauterine balloon tamponade usage for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) control was compared with an 18-hour duration. Listen in for details. 1. Durfee, J., Adkins, K., Heyborne, K., Larrea, N., & Schultz, C. (2026). Intrauterine Balloon Tamponade Duration for Postpartum Hemorrhage: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 148(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.00000000000062952. Garabedian C, Prats C, Seco A, Deneux-Tharaux C, Rozenberg P, Berveiller P. Duration of Intrauterine Balloon Tamponade in Post-Partum Haemorrhage Management After Vaginal Delivery: A Secondary Cohort Analysis From the French TUB Trial. BJOG. 2026 Jan;133(1):123-131. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.18345. Epub 2025 Sep 1. PMID: 40888007; PMCID: PMC12676195.3. Einerson BD, Son M, Schneider P, Fields I, Miller ES. The association between intrauterine balloon tamponade duration and postpartum hemorrhage outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:300.e1–5.
• 
  COCs Lead to Binge Eating? 12.07.2026 21min

  Gonadal hormones have a complicated influence on appetite. Estradiol generally suppresses appetite, whereas progesterone opposes estradiol's action such that their combined presence represents a high-risk hormonal milieu for Binge Eating (BE). Testosterone is thought to be associated with increased BE in females but appears protective in males. In some reports, combination oral contraceptive (COC) use has been linked to greater BE-related appetitive processes (e.g., food intake). Now, we have 2 recent, back-to-back publications (June 2026 in JAMA Network Open, and July 2026 in Appetite) that have examined the relationship of hormonal contraception on binge eating behavior. These found seemingly opposing conclusions. Listen in for details. 1. Klump KL, Di Dio AM, Anaya C, et al. Combined Oral Contraceptive Use and Binge Eating. JAMA Netw Open. 2026;9(6):e2619047. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.190472. Katz JM, Yan R, Beltz AM, Gearhardt AN. Associations between reproductive hormonal milieus and binge eating: The roles of sex and hormonal contraceptive use. Appetite. 2026 Jul 1;222:108547. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108547. Epub 2026 Mar 20. PMID: 41866083.3. Bass L, Prostináková T, Silang KG, Griffiths-Gray A, McQuilliam S, Mahon E, Whitehead A, Johnson KO. Does it hold weight? The perceived effects of contraceptive use on weight status in females: A mixed-methods study. PLoS One. 2025 Dec 29;20(12):e0339323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339323. PMID: 41460817; PMCID: PMC12747328.
• 
  DIY Home Vag Sonos? YEP 09.07.2026 18min

  The DIY at-home gynecology health market has EXPLODED. There is at-home vaginal/cervical HPV testing, screening for STIs, and even a blood test for multi-cancer screening (Cancer Guard). These provide a potential solution for access to care and social determinants of health. Now, a new study is seeking to add DIY at-home transvaginal ultrasounds to that mix. Yep…at home. This was published in Jama Network on July 6, 2026. Premenopausal women aged 22 to 50 years participated from 12 different locations in the US, including my home state of Texas. In this episode, we will highlight this new prospective, interventional, single group nonrandomized clinical trial. Listen in for details. 1. At-Home Transvaginal Pelvic Ultrasonography and Image Quality in Premenopausal Women A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial; Published Online: July 6, 20262026;9;(7):e2621476. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.21476
• 
  RAFT Realities: “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul” ? (July 2026 Data) 06.07.2026 29min

  As healthcare professionals, we should all seek and encourage scientific and medical discovery and new therapies. That’s one big goal of the scientific process: to bring new therapies to otherwise lethal condition. For example, back in the 80s and 90s, HIV uniformly led to AIDS, which was a death sentence. But now, HIV is 100% manageable with appropriate medical care and medical therapy. That’s a win! On the Prenatal side, lack of amniotic fluid (anhydramnios) under 22 weeks has uniformly been regarded as a fatal/lethal condition. This is because of the direct association with previable lack of amniotic fluid and lung hypoplasia. But now, serial amniocentesis for this condition is making headlines. While the headlines are catchy and serve as appropriate “click bait”, there’s more to this story. This may be a perfect example of “Robbing Peter, to Pay Paul”. Listen in for details.1. Neonatal Survival After Serial Amnioinfusions for Anhydramnios Due to Fetal Kidney Failure: The RAFT Clinical Trial. JAMA Netwoek, July 1, 20262. Medpage July 7, 2026: Amnioinfusions Mitigate Lethal Lung Hypoplasia From Fetal Kidney Failure
• 
  Circumventing Previa at Hysterotomy Creation (Surgeon’s Corner) 03.07.2026 9min

  Placenta previa has an incidence of about 0.4% to 0.5% (or 1 in 200 to 1 in 250 deliveries). Anterior placenta previa poses a unique obstacle in fetal extraction at CS: Is it best to transect (enter) the placenta or to cause a marginal abruption at the placental edge for fetal extraction? In this episode we will review an upcoming “Surgeon’s Corner” in the AJOG (July 2026) which provides some tips and tricks for this very issue.1. Verspyck E, Douysset X, Roman H, Marret S, Marpeau L. Transecting versus avoiding incision of the anterior placenta previa during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Jan;128(1):44-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.07.020. Epub 2014 Aug 27. PMID: 25218131.2. Nieto-Calvache AJ, Palacios-Jaraquemada JM, Basanta N, Suarez-Revelo MA, Benavides-Calvache JP, Meade P, Lopez-Franco MJ, Burgos-Luna JM. How to avoid placental transection during low transverse cesarean delivery for anterior placenta previa. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026 Jul;235(1):225-228. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2026.02.032. Epub 2026 Feb 25. PMID: 41759607.
• 
  40 to 40.6 EGA as Best Delivery timing? 30.06.2026 23min

  In 2018, the ARIVE trial was published in the NEJM revealingthat induction of labor at 39 weeks reduced cesarean deliveries and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia in low-risk nulliparous women who had labor induced,compared to expectant management. Then, in 2025, and partly in response to L&D units across the country becoming saturated with low- risk, nulliparous patients awaiting their induction of labors at 39 weeks and 0 days, the ACOGreleased its clinical practice update in Jan 2025 stating, “The optimal timing of delivery for full-term pregnancies (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation has not been determined”. Now there is new data, released as an article in press(June 26, 2026), out of the AJOG that raises some interesting questions about potential benefits of induction of labor LATER in the “full term” interval (40- 40 and 6 days) compared to earlier full term (39 weeks to 39 weeks 6 days). Thesefindings are “hypothesis- generating”.  Listen in for details. Strong Coffee Company - Protein Coffee PLUS MORE; Get 20%OFF | Promo Code: CHAPANOSPINOBG https://promocode.to/strong-coffee-company/chapanospinobg-hbv​     Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, et al;Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentMaternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor Induction versus ExpectantManagement in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug9;379(6):513-523. ​     Damri NT, Sheiner E, Wainstock T, GestationalAge at Full-Term Delivery and Long-Term Offspring Morbidity in Low-RiskPregnancies: A Population-Based Cohort Study, American Journal of Obstetricsand Gynecology (2026), ​     Management of Full-Term Nulliparous IndividualsWithout a Medical Indication for Delivery: ACOG Clinical Practice Update.Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Jan 1;145(1):e45-e50. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005783.Epub 2024 Nov 7. PMID: 39513607.
• 
  “New” Data: CS Skin Incision To Delivery Interval (AJOG-MFM) 27.06.2026 20min

  If you practice obstetrics, you already know that our entire world is ruled by a stopwatch. Think about it: we are obsessed with time. We wait exactly 60 or 120 minutes for a gestational diabetes challenge. We stare at a monitor for a strict 30 minutes timing a biophysical profile. The entire pregnancy is dictated by an Estimated Date of Delivery that has us counting down the literal days. But what happens when we step into the OR? Once that scalpel hits the skin for a cesarean section, does the clock matter just as much? There are two separate intervals which have generated data: the skin incision to delivery interval, and the uterine incision to delivery interval. In today's episode, we are CUTTING INTO the data. First, we are summarizing a hot-off-the-press study from AJOG-MFM (Pink) that takes a hard look at the macro clock—the skin incision-to-delivery interval. Then, we are going to contrast those findings with the recent Bart 2026 study published in the AJOG (Grey) Journal, which tracked over 5,800 routine deliveries to see exactly what happens to a baby's pH and clinical outcome when that uterine extraction takes longer than 120 seconds. These two are somewhat at odds. Listen in for details. Strong Coffee Company - Protein Coffee PLUS MORE; Get 20% OFF | Promo Code: CHAPANOSPINOBG https://promocode.to/strong-coffee-company/chapanospinobg-hbv​ Zayat N, Bertozzi-Villa C, Cavallino A, et al. Skin incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes: A retrospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM2026;00:101980.​ Bart Y, Sibai BM, Fishel Bartal M, Mazaki-Tovi S, Yoeli R. Uterine incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes among nonurgent, term, cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026 May;234(5):1459-1469. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2025.12.059. Epub 2025 Dec 30. PMID: 41478544.
• 
  More Steroid Stuff (July 2026) 24.06.2026 15min

  Think about the last time you had to time something perfectly. Maybe it taking that perfect swing at the baseball, or catching a flight after a commute, or making a high-stakes decision. In the world of high-risk pregnancy, clinicians play a constant game of high-stakes timing with a usual medication called antenatal corticosteroids. Given to moms at risk of giving birth early, these steroids are a gamechanger for a preterm neonate. But there’s a catch. If you give them too early, the benefits fade. If you give them too late and she delivers very quickly, they don't have time to work. A brand-new study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology by Mark Clapp et al reveals just how incredibly difficult this balancing act is. This data shows that nearly 26% of pregnant individuals who received these steroids actually went on to deliver completely full-term, exposing babies to medications they might not have needed. So how do we as clinicians solve this OB Goldilocks problem where the stakes are a newborn baby's health? On today's episode, we break down the data behind 'maximizing benefit while avoiding overuse' and what it means for real world practice.Strong Coffee Company - Protein Coffee PLUS MORE; Get 20% OFF | Promo Code: CHAPANOSPINOBG https://promocode.to/strong-coffee-company/chapanospinobg-hbv1. Clapp, Mark A. MD, MPH; Li, Siguo MS; Melamed, Alexander MD, MPH; Reiff, Emily MD; Gyamfi-Bannerman, Cynthia MD, MS; Kaimal, Anjali J. MD, MAS. Maximizing Benefit From Antenatal Steroid Use While Avoiding Overuse. Obstetrics & Gynecology 148(1):p e33-e42, July 20262. FIGO good practice recommendations on the use of prenatal corticosteroids to improve outcomes and minimize harm in babies born preterm. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Oct;155(1):26-303. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Quality metrics for optimal timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration; 2022
• 
  MOPP & PP BP Control 21.06.2026 18min

  More than 60% of maternal deaths occur during the postpartum period, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a major, preventable driver of that statistic. For too long, the transition from labor and delivery to home has been a vulnerable blind spot—leading to high rates of avoidablereadmissions. But the landscape has shifting. In this episode, we are diving deep into why OB providers must optimize blood pressure control before and after postpartum discharge. We’ll be breaking down the landmark 2025 MOPP study, which shook up our traditional targets by examining tight versus standard blood pressure control, alongside the recently released May 2026 ACC Expert ConsensusDecision Pathway.What is the actual "goal BP" for a safe postpartum discharge? When should we initiate outpatient tight control, and how do we prevent these patients from bouncing back to the ED? Grab your coffee and pull up a chair. Let’s look at the evidence.20% DISCOUNT: https://strongcoffeecompany.com/discount/CHAPANOSPINOBG​          Gibson K, Hameed A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Checklist forpostpartum discharge of women with hypertensive disorders. AJOG, 2020. ​          Farahi N, Oluyadi F, Dotson AB. Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. American Family Physician. 2024. ​          Lindley KJ, Bello NA, Berlacher KL, et al. Optimization of Postpartum Care for Patients With and at Risk for Premature and Long-Term Cardiovascular Disease: 2026 ACC Expert Consensus. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. May 2026. ​          ACOG Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy, 2013​          Rosenfeld EB, Sagaram D, Lee R, et al. Management of Postpartum Preeclampsia and Hypertensive Disorders (MOPP): Postpartum Tight vs Standard Blood PressureControl. JACC. Advances. 2025.