
Hosted by Dr. Chapa’s Clinical Pearls · EN

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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