Home Self-Check Urine Protein for gHTN?

CS: UT in or UT out? New July 2026 Data

Hey everyone, thanks for tuning in. If you’ve spent any time in the OR during a cesarean delivery, you know that the choice between uterine exteriorization and in situ repair usually comes down to how you were trained or personal surgeon preference. It’s a debate as old as modern obstetrics. But a major piece of clarity is coming down the pipeline. This episode, we are getting a sneak peek at a brand-new systematic review and meta-analysis dropping this July 2026 in the European Journal of OBGYN. We’re asking the big question: is this the study that finally settles the debate once and for all? Grab your coffee, stick around, and let’s find out. 16% OFF TONA ACTIVE WEAR PROMO: https://tonaactive.com/discount/CHAPANOSPINOBG [https://tonaactive.com/discount/CHAPANOSPINOBG] 1. Coutinho, I. C., Ramos de Amorim, M. M., Katz, L., & Bandeira de Ferraz, Á. A. (2008). Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 111(3), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31816521e2 [https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31816521e2] . (One of the most heavily cited clinical trials on the subject. It established that women in the exteriorized group experienced a 41% greater risk of moderate-to-severe pain at 6 hours postoperatively compared to the non-exteriorized cohort). 2. Tan, H. S., Taylor, R. C., Sharawi, N., Sultana, R., Barton, K. D., & Habib, A. S. (2021). Uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair in Cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 69(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-02142-8 [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-02142-8] 3. Fonseca Queiroz L, Lemos M, Pereira da Silva D . Uterine exteriorization versus in-situ uterine repair during cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2026; 323

SHOCKING: ACSs INCREASE Risk in Twins? (Listen in)

In the ACOG PB 231, Multifetal Gestations Twin Triplet and Higher-Order Multifetal Pregnancies, it states, “based on the improved outcomes reported in singleton gestations, the National Institutes of Health recommends that, unless a contraindication exists, a course of antenatal corticosteroids should be administered to all patients who are at risk of delivery within 7 days and who are between 24 weeks and 34 weeks of gestation, irrespective of the fetal number”. But a BRAND NEW meta-analysis is saying the exact opposite- with a catch. Listen in for details. 1. ACOG PB 231 2. Felippe, Carolina Alves MS; Ruiz, Sinrraim dos Santos Chaves MD; de Souza, Rebeca Ferreira MS; de Lima, Aliny Silva MS; dos Santos, Priscila Luiza MS; Fonseca, Pandora Eloa Oliveira MS; de Almeida Silva, Ingryd MS; Montes-de-Oca-Saucedo, Carlos Roberto MD; Santana, Ana Cecília Oliveira MS; Veta Darkovski, Jasmina MD; Matlaw, Hadas Rachel MD; Fonseca Queiroz, Laura MD. Antenatal Corticosteroid Use in Twin Pregnancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology ():10.1097/AOG.0000000000006344, June 4, 2026. | DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000006344 16% OFF TONA ACTIVE WEAR PROMO: https://tonaactive.com/discount/CHAPANOSPINOBG [https://tonaactive.com/discount/CHAPANOSPINOBG]

5mm v 1-cm Fascial Closure at CS: MINI EPISODE

Historically we were taught as surgeons that 1-centimeter bites that between suture throws on a Pfannenstiel (low transverse) fascial closure was enough to prevent hernia formation and optimize facial healing. But is this still evidence based? We can extrapolate data from a May 2026 systematic review/meta-anlysis as well as a separate study from the Dutch published in 2021. Both of these studies were in the journal Hernia. The evidence does favor one technique over the other! Listen in for details. 1. Golling M, Baumann P, Kuger F, Fortelny RH. Impact of the SUture BIte TEchnique on clinical outcomes after midline laparotomy closure: SUBITE-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia. 2026 May 19;30(1):221. doi: 10.1007/s10029-026-03700-z. PMID: 42154339; PMCID: PMC13186860. 2. Paulsen CB, Zetner D, Rosenberg J. Variation in abdominal wall closure techniques in lower transverse incisions: a nationwide survey across specialties. Hernia. 2021 Apr;25(2):345-352. doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02280-w. Epub 2020 Aug 8. PMID: 32770366.

NIPT CONFIRM Test SPECIAL GUEST: Blurring the Line between Screening & Confirmation of Fetal Aneuploidy

Today, we are talking about a true paradigm shift in prenatal genetics. For decades, we’ve relied on cell-free DNA for screening, but when it came to definitive confirmation of fetal aneuploidy, we’ve had to counsel our patients through the anxiety and physical risks of invasive procedures like amniocentesis and CVS. But what if the line between screening and confirmation just blurred? In this episode, we are diving into an avant-garde, first-of-its-kind maternal blood test that is now actively in clinical use and may prove to rival traditional invasive testing for fetal aneuploidy confirmation: the Unity CONFIRM test. To break down the cutting-edge science, the clinical validity, and exactly what this means for your daily practice, I am thrilled to welcome Jen Hoskovec, the Vice President of Medical Affairs for BillionToOne. You might have recently seen her insights featured alongside Dr. Haywood Brown in Contemporary OB/GYN, and today, she’s here with us. We’re going to discuss the availability of this test, the technology that makes it possible, and what the next concrete steps are for integrating this into modern obstetrical care. Grab your coffee. Let’s get into the science. 1. https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/view/haywood-brown-md-jennifer-hoskovec-explain-new-non-invasive-confirmatory-test [https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/view/haywood-brown-md-jennifer-hoskovec-explain-new-non-invasive-confirmatory-test] 2. Screening for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities PA; January 2026

OB, ED, and STDs: Gaps Noted!

Back in June 2024, we highlighted surprising data from JAMA Network Open regarding adolescent care in the ED. Because many adolescents use the ED as their primary care provider, it’s a good opportunity for them to have contraception addressed regardless of why they presented. But that’s not what was happening. That publication from two years ago showed significant gaps in addressing contraception in the ED to pregnancy vulnerable young women, mainly teens. We covered those results back then and said that that would be a wonderful QI project for any resident or medical students to work with their hospital ED to improve that. Well, now a similar publication, looking at a different target- STI empiric treatment among pregnant women in the ED, has been published with that same vibe. Yep, there are BIG discrepancies in what pregnant women are given- or in this case, NOT GIVEN, in the ED compared to their nonpregnant peers. This was published in mid-April 2026. Two big questions remain unanswered in this data. Listen in for details. 1. Gottlieb M, Moyer E, Slocum GW, et al. Sexually Transmitted Infection Treatment Rates Among Pregnant vs Nonpregnant Patients in Emergency Departments. JAMA Network Open. 2026. 2. Canter H, Reed J, Palmer C, et al. Contraception Use and Pregnancy Risk Among Adolescents in Pediatric Emergency Departments. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(6):e2418213. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18213