Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

Urge urinary incontinence (UUI) places a significant emotional and physical burden on women affected. Sacral neuromodulation has been and remains a well-established implant-based therapy for UUI. The concept originated in the early 1970s from sacral anterior root stimulation research for neurogenic bladder, with human clinical trials beginning in 1982. Medtronic's InterStim device received FDA approval in 1997 for UUI, and in 1999 for urgency-frequency and nonobstructive urinary retention. This was a game changer for affected women. Now, as of August 5, 2026, the FDA has granted 510(k) clearance for a new, less invasive neuromodulation implant- placed in the ANKLE. This is the Revi Extend Implant system (BlueWind Medical). What was the phase 3 data on this? What does the “wearable controller device” look like? Listen in for details.
1. Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592–1604. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.12137
2. Amundsen CL, Sutherland SE, Heesakkers JPFA, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety of Revi implantable tibial neuromodulation from the pivotal OASIS study. J Urol. 2026;216(2):219-229. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000005062
3. BlueWind Medical receives FDA 510(k) clearance for Revi Extend implant. News release. BlueWind Medical Ltd. August 5, 2026. Accessed August 5, 2026. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260805290667/en/BlueWind-Medical-Receives-FDA-510k-Clearance-for-Revi-Extend-Implant

Today, we are taking a deep dive into an intervention that almost every labor and delivery unit in North America has adopted over the last decade: Quantitative Blood Loss, or QBL. ACOG first recommended quantitative blood loss assessment in Committee Opinion Number 794, published in December 2019. This opinion recommended that every birthing facility implement a standardized, quantitative method for measuring cumulative blood loss at all deliveries, replacing visual estimation as the default approach. This built on earlier ACOG efforts, including the 2015 reVITALize initiative, which standardized obstetric data definitions and defined postpartum hemorrhage using cumulative measured blood loss thresholds (≥1,000 mL regardless of delivery route, or blood loss accompanied by signs/symptoms of hypovolemia). We’ve all weighed sponges, measured calibrated drapes, and run the math. But here’s the million-dollar question: Does measuring blood loss accurately, on its own, actually improve outcomes for patients? The answer is YES….and NO at the same time. Listen in for details as we discuss new data (July 2026 in AJOG) on this topic.
1. White A, Burns RN, Pruszynski JE, Ravindra D, Fin KX, Montgomery T, Jestes E, Ambia AM, Anyaehie B, Duryea EL. Establishing Normal Blood Loss Thresholds at the Time of Delivery Based on Quantitative Blood Loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026 Jul. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2026.07.028. S0002-9378(26)00395-9. YMOB 16849.
2. Quantitative Blood Loss in Obstetric Hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, Number 794.Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019. Committee on Obstetric Practice
3. Coomarasamy A, Devall AJ, Bell S, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Race Against Time. Lancet. 2026.

Today, we’re stepping into one of the most clinicallydelicate and emotionally heavy scenarios you can encounter in women's healthcare: a mid-pregnancy loss, say right around that 18 to 20-week mark. It’s a situation where the clinical room feels still, the emotional weight is immense, and every decision you make as a clinician carries profound gravity. Picture the scenario: The delivery has occurred. Both the fetus and the placenta have delivered, and upon gross visual examination on the delivery tray, the placenta appears intact. The immediate crisis of delivery has passed. But as theattending provider, you’re now standing at a critical management fork in the road. Do you routinely order an ultrasound before discharge to confirm the uterine cavity is truly clear? Or do you take a selective, symptom-driven approach, reserving uterine US imaging for patients who present with post-delivery warning signs like unexpected hemorrhage, severe pain, or fever? It sounds like a straightforward question, but in practice, it sparks intensedebate. Listen in, as we review professional society guidelines and the latest published data.
1.     Fox CE, et al. Mid‐trimester Pregnancy Loss GuidelineConsensus Panel. Triage and care for women with symptoms or diagnosis of pregnancy loss between 14 + 0 and 21 + 6 weeks' gestation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026 Jan;172(1):25-50. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.70621.
2.     Incognito GG, et al. Ultrasound Assessment ofRetained Products of Conception (RPOC): Insights from the Current Literature. J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 19;14(16):5864. doi: 10.3390/jcm14165864.
3.     ACOG PB 135: Second Trimester Abortion
4.     Sundararajan S, Roy S, Polanski LT. The accuracyof ultrasound scan in diagnosing retained products of conception: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 May;230(5):512-531.e3.

Today, I want to tell you a story that sounds like it was completely made up for a movie script, but it’s 100% real. Imagine an automotive mechanic in Argentina. He has zero medical training, no background in obstetrics, and no clinical degree. One night, he sees a simple party trick on YouTube: how to get a lost cork out of the inside of an empty wine bottle using nothing more than an inflated plastic bag. Most people would laugh, finish their glass of wine, and move on. But this mechanic, Jorge Odón, looked at that plastic bag and had a radical thought: Could this same basic physics principle be used to safely deliver a trapped baby during second-stage labor? Fast forward through years of engineering refinements, global partnerships, and early clinical pilots, and we get the Odón device- or OdonAssist™. It is, without a doubt, one of the most creative and innovative mechanical concepts to hit the field of operative vaginal delivery in generations. Instead of rigid metal blades applying direct compression, or high-pressure suction cups on the scalp, it uses an inflatable pneumatic cuff wrapped inside a lubricated, double-layered polyethylene sleeve. The inner layer grips the fetal vertex, while the outer layer glides smoothly against the vaginal walls, replacing high friction with plastic-on-plastic sliding action. But, and this is a big "but", as clinicians, we don't practice medicine based on good ideas or clever engineering alone. We practice based on rigorous, reproducible evidence on efficacy and safety. And that’s where the narrative gets complicated. Although the device recently secured CE mark approval in Europe, it is not FDA approved in the United States. Why? Because despite nearly two decades of development, it is still facing a major shortage of large-scale Phase 3 comparative data (non-inferiority data). And the data it does have is not quite as impressive as its design would imply. Listen in for details.

1. Mottet N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the OdonAssist inflatable device for assisted vaginal birth: the BESANCON ASSIST study. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2023; 230, S947-S958
2. Hotton EJ, Lenguerrand E, Wade J, et al. The OdonAssist inflatable device for assisted vaginal birth—the ASSIST II study (United Kingdom). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3S):S932-S946.e3.
3. https://www.mnhi.com/odonassist (CE approval)\
4. ACOG PB 219; 2020.

ACOG first recommended antiviral suppressive therapy at 36 weeks of gestation for women with a history of genital herpes in 2007, with the publication of Practice Bulletin No. 82 ("Management of Herpes in Pregnancy," June 2007). This was the first ACOG practice bulletin specifically dedicated to genital herpes management in pregnancy, and it established the 36-week suppressive therapy recommendation based on the RCTs available at that time (including the Watts 2003, Sheffield 2006, and Andrews 2006 trials). The recommendation was subsequently reaffirmed and updated in Practice Bulletin No. 220, published in May 2020, which is the current version. However, these trials had patients who ultimately delivered at/after 38 weeks. In a patient with a history of genital HSV for whom suppression is recommended but who will have a medically indicated delivery at 37 weeks, say for a hypertension disorder of pregnancy, is 36 week initiation of HSV antiviral medication enough time for suppression? There is a gap in high quality data on this. In this episode, we will review the published data and reach a clinical decision as to whether one week suppression is enough, or if initiation earlier is reasonable.
1. ACOG PB 82
2. ACOG PB 220