<p>Welcome to this issue of <i>ANZJOG</i>. This issue has several articles of public health importance in both obstetrics and gynaecology.</p><p>Dietz et al. contribute an opinion piece regarding birth trauma, with a particular reference to the 2024 NSW Upper House Select Committee Inquiry [<span>1</span>]. They rightly raise the issue of informed consent and shared decision-making in intrapartum care. This is a longstanding issue of clear medicolegal significance and an undoubted source of anxiety for those of us in active intrapartum obstetric practice. The authors suggest that ‘It should be apparent to everyone that the main problem is a lack of obstetrician involvement in antenatal care leading to poor patient preparedness and an absence of informed consent when intervention becomes necessary’ and they are critical of the recommendation for the ‘prioritisation of a midwifery-led model of care’. They are further critical of RANZCOG's contribution to the Birth Trauma Inquiry and its previous endorsement of an RCOG guideline on instrumental vaginal birth. This is an oversimplification of a much more nuanced topic.</p><p>I am mindful of the authors' substantial backgrounds in obstetric somatic trauma and informed consent for vaginal birth and I accept that their opinion piece is not intended to include an extensive review of the evidence basis for the prevention of birth trauma and informed consent around birth, nor of the impact of varying models of care upon them. However, despite their criticism of women who have suffered harm from obstetric intervention using the term ‘obstetric violence’ as ‘offensive, vexatious, and inflammatory’, their own language describing midwifery-led care as ‘the patient dying of poisoning’ is surely equally offensive to some. In particular, this appears to ignore the substantial body of evidence demonstrating the benefit of midwifery continuity of care models, not least a reduction in both caesarean section and instrumental vaginal birth [<span>2</span>], and the importance of outcomes other than ‘medical care, morbidity, and mortality’. Such attitudes and language contribute to disenfranchisement of an important proportion of midwives and pregnant women with obstetricians, driving an ‘us and them’ mentality which is counterproductive to the truly collaborative maternity care which can only be achieved when midwives and obstetricians work in a mutually respectful environment. It is only when we recognise that our two craft groups each rely upon the other to provide safe maternity care, optimising all relevant outcomes for mother, infant and their support networks, that we will be able to realise those outcomes. The authors call for better provision of information about birth outcomes to allow women to make informed decisions is entirely appropriate, but these must be made in the context of open and respectful dialogue.</p><p>Moore et al. present their study of the management of syphilis in pregnancy in South-East Qu
{"title":"Editor-In-Chief's Introduction to ANZJOG 65(3)","authors":"Scott W. White","doi":"10.1111/ajo.70056","DOIUrl":"10.1111/ajo.70056","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Welcome to this issue of <i>ANZJOG</i>. This issue has several articles of public health importance in both obstetrics and gynaecology.</p><p>Dietz et al. contribute an opinion piece regarding birth trauma, with a particular reference to the 2024 NSW Upper House Select Committee Inquiry [<span>1</span>]. They rightly raise the issue of informed consent and shared decision-making in intrapartum care. This is a longstanding issue of clear medicolegal significance and an undoubted source of anxiety for those of us in active intrapartum obstetric practice. The authors suggest that ‘It should be apparent to everyone that the main problem is a lack of obstetrician involvement in antenatal care leading to poor patient preparedness and an absence of informed consent when intervention becomes necessary’ and they are critical of the recommendation for the ‘prioritisation of a midwifery-led model of care’. They are further critical of RANZCOG's contribution to the Birth Trauma Inquiry and its previous endorsement of an RCOG guideline on instrumental vaginal birth. This is an oversimplification of a much more nuanced topic.</p><p>I am mindful of the authors' substantial backgrounds in obstetric somatic trauma and informed consent for vaginal birth and I accept that their opinion piece is not intended to include an extensive review of the evidence basis for the prevention of birth trauma and informed consent around birth, nor of the impact of varying models of care upon them. However, despite their criticism of women who have suffered harm from obstetric intervention using the term ‘obstetric violence’ as ‘offensive, vexatious, and inflammatory’, their own language describing midwifery-led care as ‘the patient dying of poisoning’ is surely equally offensive to some. In particular, this appears to ignore the substantial body of evidence demonstrating the benefit of midwifery continuity of care models, not least a reduction in both caesarean section and instrumental vaginal birth [<span>2</span>], and the importance of outcomes other than ‘medical care, morbidity, and mortality’. Such attitudes and language contribute to disenfranchisement of an important proportion of midwives and pregnant women with obstetricians, driving an ‘us and them’ mentality which is counterproductive to the truly collaborative maternity care which can only be achieved when midwives and obstetricians work in a mutually respectful environment. It is only when we recognise that our two craft groups each rely upon the other to provide safe maternity care, optimising all relevant outcomes for mother, infant and their support networks, that we will be able to realise those outcomes. The authors call for better provision of information about birth outcomes to allow women to make informed decisions is entirely appropriate, but these must be made in the context of open and respectful dialogue.</p><p>Moore et al. present their study of the management of syphilis in pregnancy in South-East Qu","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"65 3","pages":"309-311"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajo.70056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144672719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Harrison Odgers, Shannon Philp, Trevor Tejada-Berges
Patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic diseases (GTD) can develop malignant gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). ß-hCG monitoring is important in the early detection of GTN. The primary outcome of this study was to describe ß-hCG monitoring completion rates and time from GTN diagnosis to chemotherapy commencement for patients cared for by a specialised GTD unit within a Gynecologic Oncology department. Secondary outcomes included imaging findings, quantitative ß-hCG levels and gestational age at the time of GTD diagnosis, WHO/FIGO scores and chemotherapy outcomes for those who developed GTN, and the time taken for ß-hCG normalisation for both groups. We collected data for 164 patients with molar pregnancies and 28 patients with GTN requiring chemotherapy. ß-hCG monitoring completion was 93.9%, and the median time to chemotherapy commencement was 7 days. Additional data found a low risk of GTN diagnosis following a negative ß-hCG and high complete response rates to chemotherapy for GTN.
{"title":"Management of Molar-Pregnancy and Associated Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia at a Specialised Unit: 10-Year Review","authors":"Harrison Odgers, Shannon Philp, Trevor Tejada-Berges","doi":"10.1111/ajo.70053","DOIUrl":"10.1111/ajo.70053","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic diseases (GTD) can develop malignant gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). ß-hCG monitoring is important in the early detection of GTN. The primary outcome of this study was to describe ß-hCG monitoring completion rates and time from GTN diagnosis to chemotherapy commencement for patients cared for by a specialised GTD unit within a Gynecologic Oncology department. Secondary outcomes included imaging findings, quantitative ß-hCG levels and gestational age at the time of GTD diagnosis, WHO/FIGO scores and chemotherapy outcomes for those who developed GTN, and the time taken for ß-hCG normalisation for both groups. We collected data for 164 patients with molar pregnancies and 28 patients with GTN requiring chemotherapy. ß-hCG monitoring completion was 93.9%, and the median time to chemotherapy commencement was 7 days. Additional data found a low risk of GTN diagnosis following a negative ß-hCG and high complete response rates to chemotherapy for GTN.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12867547/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144278139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}