Modifying the risk of ascending uterine cavity infection during gynecological procedures


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective: To modify the risk of ascending uterine cavity infection during gynecological procedures by preventive medical vaginal sanitation. Materials and methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 80 patients who required outpatient gynecological procedures (hysterosalpingography, office hysteroscopy). There were 2 randomized groups: a study group who before the manipulation received a 6-day cycle of sanitizing therapy with a multicomponent local agent; a comparison group had no therapy. The formed groups were matched by age, parity, anamnestic data, and gynecological history. The Femoflor-16 PCR-RT assay was used to assess the microbiocenosis of the vagina and uterine cavity. Results: The total vaginal bacterial mass in the patients of both groups was lg 6.3 and 6.2 GE/sample (p=0.94). After the sanitizing therapy, the study group showed a decrease in the total vaginal bacterial contamination to lg 4.8 (Q1-Q3: 4.4-5.05) (p=0.03). The total uterine bacterial mass was lg 2.3 GE/sample (Me, IQR 2.05- 2.95) and lg 4.8 GE/sample (Me, IQR 4.25-5.2) in the study and comparison groups, respectively (p<0.001). Comparing the indicators of uterine bacterial contamination with those of vaginal biocenosis after sanitation revealed a decline in the number of Peptostreptococcus spp., Veilonella spp. and Mobiluncus spp. in 17.5% of patients (p=0.018), Staphylococcus spp. (p=0.043) and Atopobium vaginae in 12.5% (p=0.042), Streptococcus spp. in 20% (p=0.012), Gardnerella vaginalis in 27.5% (p=0.003), and members of the Enterobacteriaceae family in 35.5% (p=0.01). Uterine cavity biocenosis could be characterized as lactobacillus-dominant in 98% of patients in the study group; the dominant lactobacillus type of biocenosis was detected in 42.5% of those in the comparison group. Before and after the therapy, the correlation between the total vaginal bacterial mass was statistically significant (p=0.03; r =0.63) (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) and had a noticeable tightness in accordance with the Chaddock scale. There were statistically significant direct correlations between the total vaginal bacterial mass after the therapy and the amount of Lactobacillus spp. (ry=0.514; p=0.02) and Gardnerella vaginalis (ry=0.55;p=0.01) in the uterine cavity. Conclusion: Preoperative sanitizing therapy can reduce the overall bacterial contamination of the vagina and uterine cavity by 2 times.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Yulia E. Dobrokhotova

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: pr.dobrohotova@mail.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Faculty of Medicine

Ekaterina I. Borovkova

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: katyanikitina@mail.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Associate Professor, Professor at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Marina V. Burdenko

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: bmv-0306@rambler.ru
PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Zulya S. Zaidieva

Maternity Hospital, Separate Subdivision, A.K. Yeramishantsev City Clinical Hospital, Moscow City Healthcare Department

Email: dr.zaydieva@mail.ru
PhD, Head of the Consultative and Diagnostic Department

Diana S. Amiryan

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: diasha.aml234@gmail.com
4th year student, Medical Faculty

Elyzaveta Marakhovskaya

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: lizamarahovskay35@gmail.com
4th year student, Medical Faculty

References

  1. Sobstyl M., Brecht P., Sobstyl A., Mertowska P., Grywalska E. The role of microbiota in the immunopathogenesis of endometrial cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022; 23(10): 5756. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23105756.
  2. Baker J.M., Chase D.M., Herbst-Kralovetz M.M. Uterine microbiota: residents, tourists, or invaders? Front. Immunol. 2018; 9: 208. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00208.
  3. Dominguez-Bello M.G., Godoy-Vitorino F., Knight R., Blaser M.J. Role of the microbiome in human development. Gut. 2019; 68(6): 1108-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317503.
  4. Benner M., Ferwerda G., Joosten I., van derMolen R.G. How uterine microbiota might be responsible for a receptive, fertile endometrium. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2018; 24(4): 393-415. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy012.
  5. Agostinis C., Mangogna A., Bossi F., Ricci G., Kishore U., Bulla R. Uterine immunity and microbiota: a shifting paradigm. Front. Immunol. 2019; 10: 2387. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02387.
  6. Kitaya K., Takeuchi T., Mizuta S., Matsubayashi H., Ishikawa T. Endometritis: new time, new concepts. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110(3): 344-50. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.012.
  7. Доброхотова Ю.Э., Боровкова Е.И., Зайдиева З.С., Романовская В.В., Нугуманова О.Р. Оценка целесообразности профилактической предоперационной санации влагалища для предотвращения контаминации полости матки влагалищной микрофлорой. Акушерство и гинекология. 2022; 8: 132-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.8.132-142.
  8. Kyono K., Hashimoto T., Nagai Y., Sakuraba Y. Analysis of endometrial microbiota by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing among infertile patients: a single-center pilot study. Reprod. Med. Biol. 2018; 17(3): 297-306. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12105.
  9. Medina-Bastidas D., Camacho-Arroyo I., Garcia-Gomez E. Current findings in endometrial microbiome: impact on uterine diseases. Reproduction. 2022; 163(5): R81-R96. https://dx.doi.org/10.1530/REP-21-0120.
  10. Moreno I., Simon C. Relevance of assessing the uterine microbiota in infertility. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110(3): 337-43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.041.
  11. Krog M.C., Madsen M.E., Bliddal S., Bashir Z., Vex0 L.E., Hartwell D. et al. The microbiome in reproductive health: protocol for a systems biology approach using a prospective, observational study design. Hum. Reprod. Open. 2022; 2022(2): hoac015. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac015.
  12. Moreno I., Franasiak J.M. Endometrial microbiota-new player in town. Fertil Steril. 2017; 108(1): 32-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.05.034.
  13. Moreno I., Cicinelli E., Garcia-Grau I., Gonzalez-Monfort M., Bau D., Vilella F. et al. The diagnosis of chronic endometritis in infertile asymptomatic women: a comparative study of histology, microbial cultures, hysteroscopy, and molecular microbiology. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(6): 602.e1-602.e16. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.02.012.
  14. Singh N., Sethi A. Endometritis - diagnosis, treatment and its impact on fertility -a scoping review. JBRA Assis.t Reprod. 2022; 26(3): 538-46. https://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20220015.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies