Search

Introduction: This study aimed to identify predictors of the outcome and clinical efficacy of emergency pelvic artery embolisation (PAE) for primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and to assess the post-embolisation fertility of PAE patients in a regional hospital setting.Methods: A 12-year retrospective study of patients undergoing emergency PAE was conducted at a regional acute general hospital. Clinical and procedural parameters, clinical outcomes and post-embolisation pregnancy success rates were analysed.Results: There were 47,221 deliveries at the hospital during the study period, of which 33 patients required urgent PAE for primary PPH. The technical success rate of embolisation was 97.0% (n = 32). Clinically adequate haemostasis was achieved by a single embolisation procedure in 24 (72.7%) patients; the remaining eight eventually required surgery to achieve cessation of bleeding. Among the parameters studied, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that pre-embolisation platelet count (p = 0.036) and maternal age (p = 0.019) were the only significant independent predictors of embolisation failure. Only two patients successfully conceived after PAE, although one of them had an ectopic pregnancy.Conclusion: Emergency PAE is an effective measure to arrest life-threatening bleeding in patients with primary PPH. As low pre-embolisation platelet count and advanced maternal age are associated with higher odds of embolisation failure, careful post-embolisation monitoring may be required for such patients. Embolisation also allows subsequent pregnancy. However, further studies are required to assess the outcomes of post-embolisation pregnancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a comparative overview of the current law of unjust enrichment in Hong Kong, examining how this body of law developed and diverged from its original English roots. Unjust enrichment law in Hong Kong largely mirrors that in England, retaining its nature as a subsidiary cause of action and the four-stage framework for unjust enrichment: (i) enrichment of the defendant; (ii) at the expense of the claimant; (iii) unjust factor; and (iv) defences. Most of the elements of the four-stage framework also follow the English approach, apart from defences to unjust enrichment. In this regard, the legal position in Hong Kong differs from that of England in several ways. The 'wrongdoer' and 'bad faith' bars to the change of position defence are interpreted far more broadly in Hong Kong. This divergence is unfortunately problematic, as it involves a misreading of previous English jurisprudence, leads to harsh results, and significantly limits the ability of the change of position defence to support the development of the law of restitution. The illegality defence in Hong Kong also differs by following the previous 'reliance principle' in Tinsley v Milligan , rather than the 'range of factors' approach in Patel v Mirza , especially due to the uncertainty engineered by the latter approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]