No abstract

IntroductionThere have been significant advances in the understanding of the management of inherited bleeding disorders in pregnancy since the last Australian Haemophilia Centre Directors’ Organisation (AHCDO) consensus statement was published in 2009. This updated consensus statement provides practical information for clinicians managing pregnant women who have, or carry a gene for, inherited bleeding disorders, and their potentially affected infants. It represents the consensus opinion of all AHCDO members; where evidence was lacking, recommendations have been based on clinical experience and consensus opinion.Main recommendationsDuring pregnancy and delivery, women with inherited bleeding disorders may be exposed to haemostatic challenges. Women with inherited bleeding disorders, and their potentially affected infants, need specialised care during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum, and should be managed by a multidisciplinary team that includes at a minimum an obstetrician, anaesthetist, paediatrician or neonatologist, and haematologist. Recommendations on management of pregnancy, labour, delivery, obstetric anaesthesia and postpartum care, including reducing and treating postpartum haemorrhage, are included. The management of infants known to have or be at risk of an inherited bleeding disorder is also covered.Changes in management as a result of this statementKey changes in this update include the addition of a summary of the expected physiological changes in coagulation factors and phenotypic severity of bleeding disorders in pregnancy; a flow chart for the recommended clinical management during pregnancy and delivery; guidance for the use of regional anaesthetic; and prophylactic treatment recommendations including concomitant tranexamic acid.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Using a fixed cut-off of ≤25 mm, ultrasound assessment of cervical length during the 18-23 week anomaly scan has been shown to identify approximately 50% of pregnancies that would deliver prior to 34 weeks. Aim: To determine whether a policy of reverting to transvaginal cervical assessment only if the cervix appears short (≤25 mm) on transabdominal assessment affects the efficiency of screening. Methods: Women with a singleton pregnancy that presented for a routine anomaly scan had their cervical length assessed transabdominally, initially with the maternal bladder full (TABF) and then empty (TABE). Cervical length was then assessed transvaginally (TV). Results: One hundred and ninety-eight women agreed to participate in the study. Identification of the internal and external cervical os was possible during TABF, TABE and TV sonography in 97.0, 82.8 and 100%, respectively. Compared with TV sonography, TABF overestimates cervical length (6.1 mm difference in median values; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between TV and TABE. However, TABE assessment was not possible in one in six women. If TABF sonography was to be used as a screening tool and using ≤25 mm as the critical cut-off, the sensitivity and specificity was 15.4 and 93.2%, respectively. Conclusion: This study has shown that assessment of cervical length using a TA approach is only routinely possible when the bladder is full. However, measurements are significantly overestimated. Therefore, we feel that TV assessment of cervical length is the preferred method of reliable cervical assessment. As such, all women should be offered a TV assessment of cervical length at the time of the fetal anomaly ultrasound as a screening test for preterm birth.

A large double-blinded multicentre RCT would be feasible and acceptable to women and staff. Strategies to improve recruitment such as consenting women with an effective epidural in active labour should be considered. This would be the first RCT to answer a clinically important question which could significantly affect the operative delivery rate in Australia and internationally.

Prolactin-secreting leiomyomas are rare, with only eight cases reported in the literature. This case describes a 37-year-old female with hyperprolactinaemia (1846 mIU/L; 85–500 mIU/L) refractory to cabergoline causing infertility and galactorrhea. MRI pituitary was normal. The patient had a known enlarging uterine leiomyoma on serial pelvic ultrasounds (15.2 cm × 9.1 cm × 12.1 cm). The serum prolactin returned to subnormal levels two days postmyomectomy and showed recovery to normal levels in the months following surgery. Immunostaining of the leiomyoma for prolactin was negative. Despite not staining for prolactin, quick resolution of the patient’s hyperprolactinaemia after myomectomy supports the diagnosis of a prolactin-secreting fibroid. A prolactin-secreting leiomyoma should be considered in patients with hyperprolactinaemia and normal pituitary MRI which is refractory to dopamine receptor agonist therapy who also have evidence of a uterine fibroid. In patients wishing to seek fertility, myomectomy should be considered to allow for normal ovulation and possibility of future fertility.

Background In Australia, between the years 2010 and 2014, over 4500 adolescents and young adults (15–25 years old) were diagnosed with cancer. Treatment regimens are often gonadotoxic and are well known to induce ovarian and testicular failure. Oncofertility is an emerging discipline in obstetrics and gynaecology which seeks to preserve and restore the reproductive future of cancer patients. Aim To perform a systematic literature review to assess the current fertility preservation techniques available to patients and examine access and uptake of fertility preservation in Australia. Materials and Methods Electronic databases, including Medline, Cochrane Review, SCOPUS and CINHAL, were searched for peer‐reviewed publications and national guidelines examining oncofertility practices from 2008 to July 2018. Three hundred and seventy‐five articles were initially screened, with 158 articles for full text review and an additional five clinical guidelines were identified. Results There is a paucity of Australian data on oncofertility with <50% of data included for analysis reflecting the Australian experience. The majority of primary research included retrospective papers with small cohort numbers. Key areas addressed included live birth outcomes, uptake of services and patient and physician perspectives on fertility preservation. Few articles sought to examine the positive and negative side effects of fertility preservation in oncology, social challenges of oncofertility and access to services worldwide. Conclusion Oncofertility is an emerging discipline which seeks to provide safe, efficient and effective fertility preservation options for young adults and adolescents diagnosed with cancer. A multi‐disciplinary approach with collaborative communication with oncologists is key to providing this service within Australia.