General Anesthesia and PP Mood Disorders

If you’ve been following health and medical headlines over the past few weeks, you’ve likely seen a renewed and urgent conversation around postpartum depression—a condition that affects millions of new mothers worldwide, often with devastating consequences. While we’ve long understood that postpartum depression is deeply multifactorial—shaped by a complex web of hormonal shifts, psychological stressors, and socio-economic factors—a compelling wave of new data points to a key physical variable that might be playing a far bigger role than we previously realized: how we manage pain during cesarean deliveries. Specifically, emerging studies are highlighting a striking potential association between the use of general anesthesia during C-sections and a higher risk of subsequent postpartum depression compared to neuraxial options like epidurals or spinal blocks. Why would the choice of anesthetic in the operating room ripple into neurochemical changes weeks or months later? In today’s episode, we’re going to dive deep into this latest data. We’ll break down what the numbers actually tell us, examine the clinical nuances, and explore the potential biological and neuroendocrine mechanisms of action—from acute inflammatory cascades to neurotransmitter disruption—that could explain this link.1. Oh TK, Song IA. Neuraxial versus General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery and the Risk of Postpartum Depression: A Nationwide Population-Based Study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2026 Jun 3:101871. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2026.101871. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42242358.2. Fagan JJ, Dufour SI, Duet SJ, Downs EM, Siddaiah H, Viswanath O, Shekoohi S, Kaye AD. Influence of Neuraxial Anesthesia Technique During Vaginal and Cesarean Delivery and Association with Postpartum Depression: A Narrative Review of Literature. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2026 Apr 14;22:579920.3. Guglielminotti J, Monk C, Russell MT, Li G. Association of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery with Postpartum Depression and Suicidality. Anesth Analg. 2025 Sep 1;141(3):618-628. 4. Xie SC, Liu CH, Hung YT. Association between postpartum depression and anaesthesia methods in women undergoing caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2026 Jan 1;43(1):66-73. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002252. Epub 2025 Aug 6. PMID: 40771157.

MS is a complex polygenic disease with over 200 associated genetic variants. The risk of an offspring developing MS if one parent is affected is relatively low at 2% to 3% (though maternal transmission shows slightly higher heritability), with some possible epigenetic influences. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society reports that up to 4 times as many women have MS as men. The average age at MS diagnosis is around 30 years. Studies show this ratio has grown over the past several decades; in the mid-20th century, the ratio was roughly 2:1, but the proportion of affected females has steadily increased due to a combination of environmental, hormonal, and diagnostic factors. MS does not impair natural fertility, so OB providers should be aware of the effect of pregnancy on MS and vice verse. In this episode, we will review a brand new (as of Aug 8, 2026) expert review on the subject which was published in the AJOG. Over the last decade, clinical guidance has shifted from advising women with MS to avoid pregnancy to a more active and permissive stance, largely due to the advent of new pharmacological and biologic therapies. Listen in for details. 1. Balshi A, et al. Management of Multiple Sclerosis During Pregnancy and the Reproductive Years in 2026: An Expert Clinical Review, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2026), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2026.08.043.

The ACOG PB 222 states, “In women with preeclampsia with severe features at less than 34 0/7 weeks of gestation, with stable maternal and fetal condition, expectant management may be considered”. The expectant management of preeclampsia with severe features before 34 0/7 weeks of gestation is based on strict selection criteria of those appropriate candidates and is best accomplished in a setting with resources appropriate for maternal and neonatal care. BOX 4 in that ACOG guidance lists “Conditions Precluding Expectant management”, with one of the conditions being “Uncontrolled severe-range blood pressures (persistent systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or more or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or more not responsive to antihypertensive medication” (i.,e. persistent and refractory to appropriate medication). But what defines “uncontrolled hypertension”? When is preterm delivery indicated based on that feature? In this episode, we will answer this real-world clinical question. So, for a patient who is otherwise stable, asymptomatic, without HELLP syndrome, whose fetus is stable but is under 34 weeks, when can “uncontrolled hypertension” be diagnosed to prompt delivery? Listen in for details as we highlight the 2022 SMFM Special Report on that matter. 1. ACOG PB 2222. SMFM Special report: Preeclampsia: a report and recommendations of the workshop of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Preeclampsia Foundation, Nov 20223. De Backer J, Haugaa KH, Hasselberg NE, et al. 2025 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Cardiovascular Disease and Pregnancy. European Heart Journal. 20254. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Management of the Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Executive Summary; No. 307, May 20145. ISSHP (2018): The hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis & management recommendations for international practice. Preg Hypertension. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.isshp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/1-s2.0-S2210778918301260-main.pdf

So, here is a not uncommon situation: A new OB patient presents for initial prenatal care at 28 weeks by “sure LMP” but her ultrasound EGA is just over 3 weeks behind. Simple redating, right? How can we be assured that we are not missing FGR? That is where the “ancillary” use of transcerebellar diameter (TCD) plays a role. In this episode, we will highlight the recent JUNE 2026 data on this and review the 4 scenarios when this supplemental ultrasound finding can play a vital role. 1. Fetal Transcerebellar Diameter Measurement With Particular Emphasis in the Third Trimester: A Reliable Predictor of Gestational Age. AJOG. 2004. 2. Elgadi A, Wagealla M, Idris E, Eissa AYH, Altraifi S, Altraifi H, Abdallah E, Noorallah T, AbdAlla E. Accuracy of Ultrasonographic Transcerebellar Diameter for Gestational Age Estimation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2026 Jun 17.3. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date.Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017. 4. Arzik IG, Golbasi H, Can ST, Aktas HA, Cakir ZE, Purut CS, Torun R, Toka I, Oztataroglu C, Ekin A. Role of Transcerebellar Diameter in Estimating Gestational Age in the Third Trimester: A Comparative Analysis in Fetuses With Different Growth Patterns. J Ultrasound Med. 2026 Apr;45(4):895-903.

Today we are diving into a topic that is incredibly close to my heart—one that has the potential to fundamentally change how we approach prenatal care and protect pregnant patients. We’re talking about low-dose aspirin for the prevention of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Now, if you follow current formal guidelines, you probably know the standard protocol: 81 milligrams a day, prescribed based on specific risk factors. But there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting we might be underdosing—and under-prescribing. What if 162 milligrams taken universally across the board is actually far more effective?In today’s episode, we’re unpacking a brand-new, groundbreaking study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. And I’m especially excited to cover this one because it comes straight out of my alma mater, Parkland Hospital! This study takes a bold look at real-world outcomes by comparing a period of universal 162-milligram aspirin use directly against a historical period when aspirin wasn’t recommended at all. Did a higher, universal dose significantly cut down on hypertensive disorders? And just as importantly …were there any adverse safety events we need to be aware of? Grab your coffee, settle in, and let's get into the details.1. Duryea E, Ambia A, Pruszynski J. et al. Universal Aspirin Dispensation for Prevention of Preeclampsia in a High-Risk Population. AJOG, 2026; ePub 8/27/282. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;122(5):1122-1131. 3. ACOG Issues Updated Hypertension Guidance, Discusses New ACC/AHA Criteria (2018): https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2018/12/acog-issues-updated-hypertension-guidance4. Low-Dose Aspirin Use During Pregnancy, ACOG Committee Opinion Number 743 (2018)5. Low-Dose Aspirin Use for the Prevention of Preeclampsia and Related Morbidity and Mortality. ACOG Practice Advisory; December 2021

Today, we are tackling a massive grey area in obstetrics/maternal-fetal medicine: What happens after early fetal growth restriction resolves? When a baby bounces back on the growth chart during the second or third trimester, are they completely out of the woods? Or is there a hidden, lingering risk we aren’t talking about enough? To find out, we’re doing a deep dive into two major publications that dropped just this month, in August 2026 in sister journals (AJOG and AJOG MFM). Both are retrospective, both ask the exact same burning question…and get this: they arrive at completely opposing conclusions. How is that possible? Listen in for details. 1. Melamed B, Mei-Dan E, Aviram A. Sonographic fetal weight estimation percentiles should be interpreted with caution in the second trimester. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026 May;173(2):930-939. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.70693. Epub 2025 Nov 25. PMID: 41288086.2. Ramos SZ, Has P, Gimovsky AC, Danilack VA, Savitz DA, Lewkowitz AK. Outcomes among Neonates after a Diagnosis of Persistent or Transient Fetal Growth Restriction Delivered at Term. Am J Perinatol. 2024 May;41(S 01):e1470-e1477. doi: 10.1055/a-2051-3859. Epub 2023 Mar 9. Erratum in: Am J Perinatol. 2024 May;41(S 01):e1478. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1786526. PMID: 36894159; PMCID: PMC10562520.3. Keller N, Jackson F, Abelman S .Neonatal morbidity following resolution of fetal growth restriction diagnosed at second-trimester anatomy ultrasound. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, 2026; Aug 8. 4. Cenac LA, Wodoslawsky S, Patel V, McLaren Jr. R, Aghai ZH, Makhamreh MM, Al-Kouatly HB, Persistent, Resolved, and Absent Fetal Growth Restriction: A Comparison of Neonatal Outcomes, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2026), doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2026. Aug 19

The word CERCLAGE comes from the French word, cercle, meaning "hooping" or "encirclement". Cerclage was traditionally reserved for cervical insufficiency but is now a recognized option for patients with a history of preterm birth and a short cervix noted on ultrasound between 16-24 weeks. There are three (3) main indications for obstetrical, cervical cerclage: History-Based, Ultrasound-Based, and Physical- Exam Based. In this episode, we will summarize the key takeaways from the new ACOG CPG on OBSTETRICAL CERCLAGE, being released in September 2026.1. ACOG CPG, Obstertrical Cerclage, Sept 20262. ACOG Practice Bulletin #234: Prediction and Prevention of Spontaneous Preterm Birth, 2021

As of August 20th, 2026, the ACOG has released an updated Clinical Practice Update on opportunistic salpingectomy. Here’s why this matters so much: we now know that the vast majority of high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancers actually start not in the ovaries, but in the fallopian tubes. By removing those tubes during routine pelvic, obstetric, or even non-gynecologic abdominal surgeries, we aren't just performing standard procedures—we are drastically cutting the lifetime risk of epithelial ovarian cancer by up to 78%. Today, we’re breaking down what’s inside ACOG’s latest guidance, how surgical practices are shifting, and why this simple step is saving lives. Let’s dive in!"1. ACOG CPU (Aug 20, 2026): https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2026/08/acog-strengthens-recommendations-supporting-salpingectomy-ovarian-cancer-prevention2. ACOG CO 774: Opportunistic Salpingectomy as a Strategy for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Prevention (2019, reaffirmed 2024)

ACOG recommends the use of oral or vaginal misoprostol, vaginal dinoprostone (either gel or insert), or mechanical methods for cervical ripening. Plus, it states, “Combination methods (pharmacologic and mechanical) are also effective”. The July 2026 ACOG CPG 9 states this regarding vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: “Vaginal dinoprostone is effective for cervical ripening; however, vaginal misoprostol has higher efficacy and less need for oxytocin augmentation. The Cochrane database systematic review in 2010 that compared vaginal misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone in 38 trials (7,022 participants) showed a lower rate of failure to achieve vaginal delivery in 24 hours (RR 0.77) and reduced need for oxytocin augmentation with misoprostol (RR 0.68). There were no differences in the rates of cesarean delivery or tachysystole with FHR changes”. Now, as of August 19, 2026, a new meta-analysis from BJOG is examining this comparison (vaginal miso vs vaginal dino) again. Did they find the same thing? Listen in for details. 1. G. Andersson, B. Greenfield, A. Hunt, et al., “ Vaginal Misoprostol Compared to Vaginal Dinoprostone for Induction of Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (2026): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70314.2. ACOG Clinical Practice Guideline No. 9: Cervical Ripening in Pregnancy

Today, we are taking a deep dive into a medical truth thatsounds completely counterintuitive, almost upside down, based on everything you think you know about women's health. But here’s the kicker: it’s actually nothing new at all. For over two decades, ever since the landmark Women’sHealth Initiative (WHI) study made global headlines back in 2002, the blanket narrative surrounding menopausal hormone therapy has been clear and persistent: hormones equal breast cancer risk. But there is a massive asterisk in thatscience that got completely lost in the media noise. While combination therapy with conjugated equine estrogens paired with medroxyprogesterone acetate (CEE +MPA) did show an increased risk, the story for estrogen-only therapy (mainly CEE) in women wh had a hysterectomy is entirely different. In fact, an overwhelming mountain of growing data shows that estrogen-only therapy is protectiveagainst both breast cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality. In this episode, we’re unpacking the latest high-level evidence that cements this crucial distinction. We'll examine the broad statistical landscape, including a comprehensive meta-analysis by Qing et al. (officially set for the December 2026 issue of Annals of Medicine, following its ahead-of-print release in March 2026). Their work breaks down how randomized controlled trial data consistentlypoint to estrogen-only therapy having a protective effect, in stark contrast to combination therapy. We'll also dive into a brand-new Clinical Perspective published in mid-August 2026 in Obstetrics & Gynecology (the Green Journal) by Drs. Andrew Kaunitz and Jason Wright. They call urgent attention to this phenomenon, highlighting RCT meta-analyses that demonstrate a 23% reduction in breast cancer incidence with estrogen alone (RR = 0.77), alongside striking cohort data showing a dramatic risk reduction even in high-risk populations, like carriers of the BRCA mutation.  Listenin for details.1.     Wu Q, Shen L, Hu S, Yang R, Wang Y, Xue D, SunY, Ma H, Dai Z. Relationship between menopausal hormone therapy and incidencerisk of breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med. 2026Dec;58(1):2640244. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2026.2640244. Epub 2026 Mar.2.     Kaunitz, Wright. Menopausal Estrogen Therapy andRisk of Breast Cancer. Obstet Gynecol. Aug 20263.     Chlebowski RT, Aragaki AK, Pan K, et al.Randomized Trials of Estrogen-Alone and Breast Cancer Incidence: AMeta-Analysis. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2024. 4.     Writing Group for the Women's Health InitiativeInvestigators. (2002). Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthypostmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women's Health Initiativerandomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(3), 321–333.