OBJECTIVE: To describe the natural history and outcomes of a large cohort of expectantly managed angular pregnancies diagnosed in the first trimester by specific ultrasound criteria. METHODS: We conducted a prospective case series of women with prenatally diagnosed angular pregnancy at a single academic tertiary care center from March 2017 to February 2019. Participants were identified at first-trimester ultrasound scan using specifically proposed diagnostic criteria for angular pregnancy and followed prospectively. Maternal and fetal data were gathered from the medical record. RESULTS: Forty-two cases of angular pregnancy were identified at first-trimester ultrasound scan. At presentation, 33 patients (79%) were asymptomatic, eight (19%) had vaginal bleeding, and two (5%) had pain. The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 7.4±1.0 weeks; the mean myometrial thickness was 5.1±1.6 mm (95% CI 4.6–5.6). At initial follow-up about 2 weeks later, 23 patients (55%) had ultrasound scans that normalized, 13 (31%) cases persisted as angular pregnancies, and six (14%) resulted in early pregnancy loss. After each gestation had been followed until completion, 33 (80%) pregnancies resulted in live birth and eight (20%) in early pregnancy loss. One patient was lost to follow-up. Of the 33 live births, 24 (73%) were vaginal deliveries, nine (27%) were cesarean deliveries, 27 (82%) were term deliveries, and six (18%) were preterm deliveries. There were no cases of uterine rupture, maternal death, abnormal placentation, or hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In 42 cases of angular pregnancy diagnosed by first-trimester ultrasound examination, outcomes were largely positive, with an 80% live-birth rate and a 20% early pregnancy loss rate. Early diagnosis of angular pregnancy using the described criteria may represent an entity that more closely resembles a normal, noneccentric intrauterine pregnancy rather than an ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, most cases can be closely observed and efforts made to expectantly manage pregnancies while awaiting viability.
Eccentrically located intracavitary pregnancies, which include pregnancies traditionally termed as cornual and/or angular, have long presented complex diagnostic and management challenges given their inherent relationship to interstitial ectopic pregnancies. This review uses the existing literature to discriminate among interstitial, cornual, and angular pregnancies. Current arguments propose the outright abandonment of the terms cornual and angular may be justified in favor of the singular term, eccentric pregnancy. Disparate definitions and diagnostic approaches have compromised the literature’s ability to precisely describe prognosis and ideal management practices for each of these types of pregnancies. Standardizing the classification of these pregnancies near the uterotubal junction is important to unify conservative, yet safe and effective management strategies. We advocate the use of early first trimester ultrasound to correctly differentiate between eccentric pregnancy and interstitial ectopic pregnancy as current research suggests substantially better outcomes with correctly diagnosed and expectantly managed eccentric pregnancies than past investigations may have shown. The expectant management of eccentric pregnancies will often result in a healthy term pregnancy, while interstitial ectopic pregnancies inherently have a poor likelihood of progressing to viability. When the terms and diagnosis of cornual, angular, and interstitial pregnancy are indistinct, there is substantial risk of intrauterine pregnancies to be inappropriately managed as ectopic pregnancies. Until we standardize terms and criteria, it will remain difficult, if not impossible, to determine true risk for pregnancy loss, preterm labor, abnormal placentation, and uterine or uterotubal rupture. The development of best practice guidelines will require standardized terminology and diagnostic techniques.
The proposed human chorionic gonadotropin threshold model optimizes the balance between identifying viable intrauterine pregnancies and minimizing rates of misdiagnosis of nonviable pregnancies.
ImportanceStudies comparing perioperative outcomes of fibula free flaps (FFFs), osteocutaneous radial forearm free flaps (OCRFFFs), and scapula free flaps (SFFs) have been limited by insufficient sample size.ObjectiveTo compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent FFFs, OCRFFFs, and SFFs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study assessed the outcomes of 1022 patients who underwent FFFs, OCRFFFs, or SFFs for head and neck reconstruction performed at 1 of 6 academic medical centers between January 2005 and December 2019. Data were analyzed from September 17, 2021, to June 9, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatients were stratified based on the flap performed. Evaluated perioperative outcomes included complications (overall acute wound complications, acute surgical site infection [SSI], fistula, hematoma, and flap failure), 30-day readmissions, operative time, and prolonged hospital length of stay (75th percentile, >13 days). Patients were excluded if data on flap type or clinical demographic characteristics were missing. Associations between flap type and perioperative outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression, after controlling for other clinically relevant variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% CIs were generated.ResultsPerioperative outcomes of 1022 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [14.5] years; 676 [66.1%] men) who underwent major osseous head and neck reconstruction were analyzed; 510 FFFs (49.9%), 376 OCRFFFs (36.8%), and 136 SFFs (13.3%) were performed. Median (IQR) operative time differed among flap types (OCRFFF, 527 [467-591] minutes; FFF, 592 [507-714] minutes; SFF, 691 [610-816] minutes). When controlling for SSI, FFFs (aOR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.36-4.51) and SFFs (aOR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.37-6.34) were associated with a higher risk of flap loss than OCRFFFs. Compared with OCRFFFs, FFFs (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.07-2.91) were associated with a greater risk of fistula after controlling for the number of bone segments and SSI. Both FFFs (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.27-2.46) and SFFs (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.05-2.69) were associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission compared with OCRFFFs after controlling for Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and acute wound complications. Compared with OCRFFFs, FFFs (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.25-2.54) and SFFs (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-3.13) were associated with a higher risk of prolonged hospital length of stay after controlling for age and flap loss.Conclusions and RelevanceFindings of this cohort study suggest that perioperative outcomes associated with OCRFFFs compare favorably with those of FFFs and SFFs, with shorter operative times and lower rates of flap loss, 30-day readmissions, and prolonged hospital length of stay. However, patients undergoing SFFs represented a more medically and surgically complex population than those undergoing OCRFFFs or FFFs.
p<0.0001). These differences were due to the age of the OD group, which showed a percentage of samples at risk of aneuploidy of 0.72%. Comparable age groups of OO and NC did not show significant differences for the percentage of samples at risk of aneuploidy (2.22% vs. 2.76% respectively). No significant differences were observed in the false positive rates among any of the groups investigated. Unlike previously reported, we observed a significant higher FF in the ART group than in NC (9.8% vs. 9.5% respectively; p<0.01). No significant differences were observed in the percentage of samples with FF<4 (3.5% in the NC, 3.3% for OO and 4% for the OD).CONCLUSIONS: It has been suggested that woman who conceive by ART have a higher probability of false positives and non-call results in the NIPT due to low FF than those who conceive naturally. Our results in more than 17,000 patients showed similar false positive rates in both populations as well as FF rate in all groups analysed. We conclude that ART conceptions are comparable to those conceiving naturally in terms of NIPT test performance.SUPPORT: None.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.