Search

There are 2 approaches to fetal assessment during labor: continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) and intermittent auscultation (IA). The vast majority of healthy labors in the United States use EFM, despite professional organization recommendations against its use for low-risk pregnancies. This qualitative investigation explores maternity care team members' perspectives on why EFM is the dominant approach to fetal assessment instead of IA. Focus groups comprised of nurses, midwives, and physicians were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. Transcripts were analyzed using directed content analysis to identify themes related to clinical and nonclinical factors influencing the type of fetal assessment employed during labor. Seven focus groups with a total of 41 participants were completed. Seven themes were identified: clinical environment; technology; policies, procedures, and evidence-based protocols; patient-centered influences; fear of liability; providers as members of healthcare team; and deflection of responsibility. All maternity care team members had knowledge of the evidence base supporting IA use for low-risk care. Nurses identified unique challenges in having agency over monitoring decision making and executing best practices. Improved communication among team members can facilitate evidence-based approaches to IA use, facilitating increased utilization for low-risk labor care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their shared predilection for superficial soft tissue of distal extremities and frequent local recurrences, myxoinflammatory fibroblastic sarcoma (MIFS) and hemosiderotic fibrolipomatous tumor (HFLT) have distinct morphologic appearances. Recent studies have identified an identical t(1;10)(p22;q24) in five cases of MIFS and two of HFLT, as well as common amplifications on 3p11-12. To investigate further their potential relationship and to determine the incidence of t(1;10) in a larger cohort, we subjected seven MIFS, 14 HFLT, and three cases with mixed morphology, to molecular and cytogenetic analysis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis for rearrangements of TGFBR3 on 1p22 and of MGEA5 on 10q24 was performed in all cases, whereas the status of VGLL3 gene amplification on 3p12.1 was investigated in 12 cases. Conventional karyotyping was performed in one HFLT and two cases with mixed MIFS/HFLT histology. Overall 83% of cases showed rearrangements in both TGFBR3 and MGEA5. All three cases with mixed features of MIFS and HFLT were positive. Cytogenetic analysis performed in three cases confirmed an unbalanced der(10)t(1;10)(p22;q24). VGLL3 gene amplification was noted in 10/12 cases of both histologies. The high incidence of t(1;10) in MIFS and HFLT reinforces a shared pathogenetic relationship. Furthermore, the co-existence of both components either synchronously or metachronously in a primary or subsequent recurrence, suggest either different morphologic variants or different levels of tumor progression of a single biologic entity. FISH analysis for TGFBR3 and MGEA5 rearrangements can be applied as a reliable diagnostic molecular test when confronted with limited material or a challenging diagnosis., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)