Search

Introduction: About one in 500 pregnant women requires a surgical intervention that is not pregnancy-related. One of the most common surgical interventions during pregnancy is appendectomy. The primary aim of this study was to assess surgical access of appendectomy during pregnancy and pregnancy outcome. Secondary outcomes were clinical symptoms and diagnostics as well as histopathological analysis., Methods and Material: This is a single-center retrospective data analysis conducted at a tertiary perinatal center. A digital search of the hospital record archive was conducted focusing on pregnant women beyond 24 0/7 weeks of pregnancy encoding appendectomy. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed., Results: Between January 2013 and January 2023, a total of 20 appendectomies were performed during pregnancy with gestational age beyond 24 0/7 weeks of pregnancy. All of them were performed as lower midline laparotomy. The rate of appendix perforation was 3/20 (15.0%). 19/20 patients (95.0%) delivered via cesarean. In 7/20 patients (35.0%) appendectomy was performed during cesarean delivery due to incidental finding of irritated or abnormal vermiform appendix. In the pathological work-up, only 2/7 (28.6%) of these subjects had inflammation., Conclusion: In this small monocentric cohort, only open appendectomies were performed. Our data indicate that it is safe to perform open appendectomy during pregnancy if necessary. In this small patient group, there was an increase in simultaneous cesarean deliveries., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common organ-specific birth defects and a major cause of infant morbidity and mortality. Despite ultrasound screening guidelines, the detection rate of CHD is limited. Fetal intelligent navigation echocardiography (FINE) has been introduced to extract reference planes and cardiac axis from cardiac spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC) volume datasets. This study analyses the cardiac axis in fetuses affected by CHD/thoracic masses ( n = 545) compared to healthy fetuses ( n = 1543) generated by FINE. After marking seven anatomical structures, the FINE software generated semi-automatically nine echocardiography standard planes and calculated the cardiac axis. Our study reveals that depending on the type of CHD, the cardiac axis varies. In approximately 86% (471 of 542 volumes) of our pathological cases, an abnormal cardiac axis (normal median = 40-45°) was detectable. Significant differences between the fetal axis of the normal heart versus CHD were detected in HLHS, pulmonary atresia, TOF ( p -value < 0.0001), RAA, situs ambiguus ( p -value = 0.0001-0.001) and absent pulmonary valve syndrome, DORV, thoracic masses ( p -value = 0.001-0.01). This analysis confirms that in fetuses with CHD, the cardiac axis can significantly deviate from the normal range. FINE appears to be a valuable tool to identify cardiac defects.

Background: There is no meta-analysis that specifically evaluates the effectiveness of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (PD/A) so far. The current meta-analysis aims to fill this gap (PROSPERO CRD 42016034016)., Methods: Systematic literature searches in six databases for randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating IMIs in adults, who met diagnostic criteria for PD/A. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted when appropriate. Primary outcomes were PD and A symptom severity. In addition, adherence, response, remission, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptom severity were examined., Results: A total of 16 trials (1015 patients), with 21 comparisons (9 IMI vs. waitlist; 7 IMI vs. IMI; 5 IMI vs. active treatment condition), were included. IMIs revealed beneficial effects on panic (Hedges' g range -2.61 to -0.25) and agoraphobia symptom severity when compared to waitlist (pooled g = -1.15, [95%-CI = -1.56; -0.74]). Studies comparing IMIs to active controls (i.e., face-to-face CBT and applied relaxation) did not find significant differences for reductions in panic (g = -0.02, [95%-CI = -0.25; 0.21]) and agoraphobia symptom severity (g = -0.10, [95%-CI = -0.39; 0.19]). Furthermore, IMIs were superior to waitlist controls regarding anxiety and depression symptom severity and quality of life., Limitations: Tests for publication bias were not feasible due to the limited number of trials per comparison, and the risk of bias assessment indicated some methodological shortcomings., Conclusions: Findings from this meta-analytic review provide support for the effectiveness of IMIs in patients with verified PD/A. However, before IMIs can be included in treatment guidelines for PD/A, future high quality research is needed that substantiates and extends the evidence base, especially in regard to intervention safety., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)