Dr. Chapa’s OBGYN Clinical Pearls

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, 2026
2. 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-hbv
1. 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 2026
2. 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):26-30
3. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Quality metrics for optimal timing of antenatal corticosteroid administration; 2022