Search

Lesson: This case highlights the importance of genetic testing over fibroblast testing and presents the first published thromboelastometry data in vascular Ehlers–Danlos syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Twin pregnancy is associated with a 2-3-fold increased risk of stillbirth compared with singleton pregnancy. Despite the fact that the growth pattern in twins has been shown to be different from that in singletons, it is controversial whether twin-specific growth charts should be used routinely. A major goal of prenatal ultrasound is to identify fetuses with growth restriction at risk of stillbirth. The main aim of this study was to compare the performance of chorionicity-specific twin charts with singleton charts, both customized and non-customized, in the antenatal prediction of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) stillborn and liveborn fetuses.Methods: This was a multicenter cohort study analyzing data from the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort (2000-2009) and a second cohort of twin pregnancies at St George's University Hospital (SGH) (2011-2016). The STORK cohort was used to compare the performance of the twin charts and non-customized singleton charts of Poon et al. and the SGH cohort was used to validate the twin-specific charts and compare their performance against customized (Gestation Related Optimal Weight (GROW)) and non-customized (Poon) singleton charts. The primary outcome was the prediction of SGA cases that were stillborn and those that were liveborn in twin pregnancies. Estimated fetal weight (EFW) available from the last examination (24 weeks' gestation and onwards) before delivery or demise was used to classify the fetuses as SGA (EFW < 10th centile or < 3rd centile) or appropriate for gestational age. The proportions of predicted SGA stillbirths and SGA live births were calculated using the three different charts.Results: The STORK cohort consisted of 1850 dichorionic (DC) and 300 monochorionic (MC) twin pregnancies. The SGH cohort consisted of 579 DC and 180 MC twin pregnancies. The stillbirth rates in the STORK and SGH cohorts were 1.1% and 1.3%, respectively. In those liveborn in the STORK cohort, using a 10th -centile cut-off to define SGA, the non-customized singleton chart classified a significantly greater proportion as SGA than did the twin chart, regardless of chorionicity (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the twin and the non-customized singleton charts with regard to the proportion of stillbirth cases that were classified as SGA (P = 0.479). In the SGH cohort, the non-customized singleton chart classified 8.5% of all liveborn fetuses as SGA (EFW < 10th centile) compared with 12.8% using the customized singleton chart and 7.1% using the twin chart (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). However, there was no significant difference among the three charts in the proportion of stillbirths classified as SGA, regardless of chorionicity (P = 0.999). Similar results were obtained when the third centile cut-off was used to define SGA.Conclusions: Compared with the STORK chorionicity-specific twin charts, the customized and non-customized singleton charts classified prenatally as SGA more liveborn fetuses. However, the three charts classified as SGA a similar proportion of stillborn cases. Our preliminary results suggest that these twin charts could safely reduce unnecessary medical intervention in twin pregnancies. Further research on the topic is needed before clinical recommendations can be made. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ABSTRACT Objectives The aims of this study were first, to ascertain the accuracy of formulae for ultrasonographic birth-weight estimation in twin compared with singleton pregnancies and second, to assess the accuracy of sonographic examination in the prediction of birth-weight discordance in twin pregnancies. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study including both singleton and twin pregnancies. Routine biometry was recorded and estimated fetal weight ( EFW) calculated using 33 different formulae. Only pregnancies that delivered within 48 h of the ultrasound scan were included (4280 singleton and 586 twin fetuses). Differences between the EFW and actual birth weight ( ABW) were assessed by percentage error, accuracy in predictions within ± 10 % and ± 15% of error and use of the Bland-Altman method. The accuracy of prediction of the different cut-offs of birth-weight discordance in twin pregnancies was also assessed using the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve ( AUC). Results The overall mean absolute percentage error was ≤ 10 % for 25 formulae in singleton pregnancies compared with three formulae in twin pregnancies. The overall predictions within ± 10% and ± 15% of the ABW were 62.2% and 81.5% in singleton and 49.7% and 68.5% in twin pregnancies, respectively. When the formulae were categorized according to the biometric parameters included, those based on a combination of head, abdomen and femur measurements showed the lowest mean absolute percentage error, in both singleton and twin pregnancies. The predictive accuracy for 25% birth-weight discordance using the Hadlock 2 formula, as assessed by the AUC, was 0.87. Conclusions Ultrasound estimation of birth weight is less accurate in twin than in singleton pregnancies. Formulae that include a combination of head, abdomen and femur measurements perform best in both singleton and twin pregnancies. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective It is often assumed by obstetricians, neonatol-ogists and parents that the prenatal nomenclature used to identify twins on ultrasound is consistent with twin labeling after their birth. The aim of this study was to use a large regional database of twin ultrasound scans to validate the effectiveness of a scan before delivery in predicting twin birth-order. Methods A large regional database of twin ultrasound scans with data from nine hospitals over a 10-year period was used to identify all ultrasound examinations carried out just before birth. The discordance in twin order between the last scan and birth was evaluated by observing discrepancies in fetal sex and weight. Results In total, 2103 twin pregnancies with ultrasound estimated fetal weights (EFWs) and birth weights were assessed. Of these, fetal sex was recorded in 149 different-sex pregnancies. Discrepancy between antenatal labeling and the anticipated birth order was noted in 37.6% (56/149) of cases when judged by sex discordance and in 36% (757/2103) of cases when judged by weight discordance. Multiple logistic regression analyses demonstrated that weight discordance, but not chorionicity, scan-to-delivery interval, gestation at scan or gestation at delivery, significantly influenced the change in birth order (V< 0.001). Conclusion Antenatal ultrasound labeling does not predict twin birth-order in a significant proportion of twin deliveries. This finding should be borne in mind not only by parents, but also by physicians when delivering twins discordant for anomalies that are not evident on external examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We treated two patients with large ovarian cysts in pregnancy conservatively. In both cases, aspiration of the cysts under ultrasound guidance allowed successful vaginal delivery. In one case, the cyst fluid reaccumulated, and required further aspiration in labour. In both cases, benign ovarian cysts were removed laparoscopically at a later date. Various strategies for dealing with ovarian cysts in pregnancy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]