Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

We have learned a lot about extended spectrum coverage of prophylactic antibiotics for cesarean section. The landmark C/SOAP trial randomized 2,013 women undergoing nonelective cesarean delivery to azithromycin 500 mg IV plus standard prophylaxis versus placebo, demonstrating a 51% reduction in the composite outcome of endometritis, wound infection, or other infection. Adjuvant Zmax (plus standard first-generation cephalosporin) is now recognized as evidence-based antibiotic coverage for intrapartum cesarean, cesarean with ruptured membranes, and patients with obesity. This last patient characteristic comes from the ERAS latest update. But what is ZMAX is not available? Is there an evidence-based peri-op alternative in these cases? Does Gent and Clinda cover mycoplasma/Ureaplasma? What about postop flagyl? Listen in for details.

1. Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, et al. Adjunctive Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Cesarean Delivery. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016. 2. Yang M, Yuan F, Guo Y, Wang S. Efficacy of Adding Azithromycin to Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Caesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2022.
2. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 199: Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Labor and Delivery.
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics
3. Martingano D, Nguyen A, Nkeih C, Singh S, Mitrofanova A. Clarithromycin Use for Adjunct Surgical Prophylaxis Before Non-Elective Cesarean Deliveries to Adapt to Azithromycin Shortages in COVID-19 Pandemic. PloS One. 2020.
4. Valent AM, DeArmond C, Houston JM, et al. Effect of Post–Cesarean Delivery Oral Cephalexin and Metronidazole on Surgical Site Infection Among Obese Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017.
5. Wood, G. E., et al. "In Vitro Susceptibility of Mycoplasma genitalium to Nitroimidazoles." Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
6. https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/mycoplasmagenitalium.htm

We have covered the subject of whether to include the decidual (innermost) layer when closing the uterine incision during cesarean section (CS) on at least 2 episodes. The most recent was in September 2025, when we focused on a published (September 2025) systematic review and meta-analysis from the Green Journal. Back then, we compared those new findings to our prior episode from 2023 on the same matter. Well, we are back at it again with the same subject as there is a new EXPERT REVIEW from the AJOG on hysterotomy closure technique which just came out January 2026. What did these authors conclude? There are also some controversial suggestions made by the authors. Listen in for details.

1. Antoine C, Meyer JA, Silverstein J, Buldo-Licciardi J, Lyu C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Endometrium-Free Closure Technique During Cesarean Delivery for Reducing the Risk of Niche Formation and Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Jun 1;145(6):674-682. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005813. Epub 2025 Jan 9. PMID: 39787602.
2. Gialdini, Celina et al.Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. eClinicalMedicine- Lancet (June 2024), Volume 72, 102632
3. Dahlke, Joshua D. MD; Mendez-Figueroa, Hector MD; Maggio, Lindsay MD, MPH; Sperling, Jeffrey D. MD, MS; Chauhan, Suneet P. MD, Hon DSc; Rouse, Dwight J. MD. The Case for Standardizing Cesarean Delivery Technique: Seeing the Forest for the Trees. Obstetrics & Gynecology 136(5):p 972-980, November 2020. | DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004120
4. Antoine C, Timor-Tritsch IE, Bujold E, Young BK, Reece EA. Endometrium-free closure technique for hysterotomy incision at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026 Jan;233(6S):S103-S114. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2025.07.009. PMID: 41485813.

As OB healthcare providers, we have several pieces of guidance regarding determination of amniotic fluid volume antepartum. The SMFM has Consult Series #46 (2018), which describes the management of polyhydramnios. We'll touch on that in this episode. However, while we have clear understanding of the increased risks of oligohydramnios, where an MVP is preferred for diagnosis over AFI, we have less information about polyhydramnios. But a new study published in BJOG (January 2026) provides more insights on this. While MVP is preferred for oligo diagnosis, can the same be said for polyhydramnios? Is there an increased risk in perinatal morbidity with polyhydramnios, and is that better detected by MVP or AFI? This new study findings left the authors unsatisfied although it CONFIRMED what we have covered in past episodes. Listen in for details.

1. Dashe, Jodi S. et al. SMFM Consult Series #46: Evaluation and management of polyhydramnios. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 219, Issue 4, B2 - B8 (2018)
2. ACOG PB 229: Antepartum Fetal Surveillance (2021)
3. Petrecca A, Chauhan SP, Tersigni C, Ghi T, Berghella V. Amniotic Fluid Index Versus Maximum Vertical Pocket Versus Both for Polyhydramnios. BJOG. 2026 Jan 7. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.70139. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41502220.

Back in March of 2025, the green journal (obstetrics andgynecology) published A systematic review and meta-analysis on 2 medications (non-hormonal) and their efficacy in menopausal hot flash relief period these medications were Fezolinetant and Elinzanetant. However, the editors have just recently released an “Expression of Concern” about this review. Listen in for details.
1.     Menegaz de Almeida, Artur MS; Oliveira, PalomaMS; Lopes, Lucca MD; Leite, Marianna MS; Morbach, Victória MS; Alves Kelly,Francinny MD; Barros, Ítalo MS; Aquino de Moraes, Francisco Cezar MS;Prevedello, Alexandra MD. Fezolinetant and Elinzanetant Therapy for MenopausalWomen Experiencing Vasomotor Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obstetrics & Gynecology 145(3):p 253-261, March 2025. | DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005812
2.     Expression of Concern: Fezolinetant andElinzanetant Therapy for Menopausal Women Experiencing Vasomotor Symptoms: ASystematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology():10.1097/AOG.0000000000006180, January 16, 2026. | DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000006180

Implanon (etonogestrel implant) first received FDA approval in 2006, followed by the improved, radiopaque version, Nexplanon, approved by the FDA in 2010, which is now the only contraceptive implant available in the U.S. It was originally FDA approved for a 3-year use duration, although peer reviewed clinical data had demonstrated efficacy through year 5. Now, as of January 2026, the FDA has formally agreed to extend the label for 5-year use. In this episode, we will review the clinical data that prompted the FDA’s decision, based on a multicenter, single-arm, open-label study evaluating contraceptive efficacy and safety during years 4 and 5 of implant use.
1. https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/view/fda-approves-5-year-use-for-etonogestrel-implant-68-mg-contraceptive
2. Organon announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of supplemental new drug application extending duration of use of NEXPLANON (etonogestrel implant) 68 mg Radiopaque. Organon. Press release. January 16, 2026. Accessed January 19, 2026. https://www.organon.com/news/organon-announces-us-food-and-drug-administration-approval-of-supplemental-new-drug-application-extending-duration-of-use-of-nexplanon-etonogestrel-implant-68-mg-radiopaque/
3. Ali M, Akin A, Bahamondes L, et al. Extended Use Up to 5 Years of the Etonogestrel-Releasing Subdermal Contraceptive Implant: Comparison to Levonorgestrel-Releasing Subdermal Implant. Human Reproduction. 2016.
4. McNicholas C, Swor E, Wan L, Peipert JF. Prolonged Use of the Etonogestrel Implant and Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device: 2 Years Beyond Food and Drug Administration-Approved Duration. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017.
5. McNicholas C, Maddipati R, Zhao Q, Swor E, Peipert JF. Use of the Etonogestrel Implant and Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device Beyond the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Duration. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015.