DOCSLIB.ORG

External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation at Term (Review)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation at Term (Review) External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Review) Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Review) Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS HEADER....................................... 1 ABSTRACT ...................................... 1 PLAINLANGUAGESUMMARY . 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . ..... 3 BACKGROUND .................................... 6 OBJECTIVES ..................................... 8 METHODS ...................................... 8 RESULTS....................................... 11 Figure1. ..................................... 13 Figure2. ..................................... 14 DISCUSSION ..................................... 16 AUTHORS’CONCLUSIONS . 17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 17 REFERENCES ..................................... 18 CHARACTERISTICSOFSTUDIES . 22 DATAANDANALYSES. 34 Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 1 Vaginal cephalic birth not achieved (CS + breech vaginal birth) (not prespecified). ............ 35 Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 2 Caesarean section. 36 Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 3 Non-cephalic presentationatbirth. 37 Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 4 Vaginal breech birth (notprespecified). ................................ 38 Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 5 Apgar score < 7 at 1 minute(notprespecified). 39 Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 6 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes. ................................... 40 Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 7 Umbilical vein pH < 7.20...................................... 41 Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 8 Perinatal death. 42 Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 9 Neonatal admission. 43 Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 External cephalic version at term versus no ECV attempt, Outcome 10 Enrolment-delivery interval(notprespecified). 44 Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high risk of bias), Outcome 1 Vaginal cephalic birth not achieved (CS + breech vaginal birth). 45 Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high risk of bias), Outcome 2 Caesarean section. 46 Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high risk of bias), Outcome 3 Non cephalic presentationatbirth. 47 Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies with high risk of bias), Outcome 4 Vaginal breech birth...................................... 48 Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies in Africa), Outcome 1 Vaginal cephalic birth not achieved (CS+breechvaginalbirth). 49 Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies in Africa), Outcome 2 Caesarean section. 50 Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies in Africa), Outcome 3 Non cephalic presentation at birth...................................... 51 Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Sensitivity analysis (excluding studies in Africa), Outcome 4 Vaginal breech birth. 52 APPENDICES ..................................... 52 WHAT’SNEW..................................... 52 HISTORY....................................... 53 CONTRIBUTIONSOFAUTHORS . 53 DECLARATIONSOFINTEREST . 54 External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Review) i Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. SOURCESOFSUPPORT . 54 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . .... 54 INDEXTERMS .................................... 54 External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Review) ii Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Intervention Review] External cephalic version for breech presentation at term G Justus Hofmeyr1, Regina Kulier2, Helen M West3 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, University of the Witwatersrand, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, East London, South Africa. 2Geneva, Switzerland. 3Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Contact address: G Justus Hofmeyr, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, University of the Witwatersrand, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, Frere and Cecilia Makiwane Hospitals, Private Bag X 9047, East London, Eastern Cape, 5200, South Africa. [email protected]. Editorial group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 4, 2015. Review content assessed as up-to-date: 28 February 2015. Citation: Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD000083. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000083.pub3. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ABSTRACT Background Management of breech presentation is controversial, particularly in regard to manipulation of the position of the fetus by external cephalic version (ECV). ECV may reduce the number of breech presentations and caesarean sections, but there also have been reports of complications with the procedure. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of ECV at or near term on measures of pregnancy outcome. Methods of facilitating ECV, and ECV before term are reviewed separately. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (28 February 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of ECV at or near term (with or without tocolysis) compared with no attempt at ECV in women with breech presentation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted the data. Main results We included eight studies, with a total of 1308 women randomised. The pooled data from these studies show a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in non-cephalic presentation at birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.61, eight trials, 1305 women); vaginal cephalic birth not achieved (average RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.62, seven trials, 1253 women, evidence graded very low); and caesarean section (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82, eight trials, 1305 women, evidence graded very low) when ECV was attempted in comparison to no ECV attempted. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar score ratings below seven at one minute (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.37, three trials, 168 infants) or five minutes (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.36, five trials, 428 infants, evidence graded very low), low umbilical vein pH levels (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Review) 1 Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. to 2.44, one trial, 52 infants, evidence graded very low), neonatal admission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34, four trials, 368 infants, evidence graded very low), perinatal death (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64, eight trials, 1305 infants, evidence graded low), nor time from enrolment to delivery (mean difference -0.25 days, 95% CI -2.81 to 2.31, two trials, 256 women). All of the trials included in this review had design limitations, and the level of evidence was graded low or very low. No studies attempted to blind the intervention, and the process of random allocation was suboptimal in several studies. Three of the eight trials had serious design limitations, however excluding these studies in a sensitivity analysis for outcomes with substantial heterogeneity did not alter the results. Authors’ conclusions Attempting cephalic version at term reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth, vaginal cephalic birth not achieved and caesarean section. There is not enough evidence from randomised trials to assess complications of ECV at term. Large observational studies suggest that complications are rare. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY External cephalic version for breech presentation at term External cephalic version (ECV) from 36 weeks reduces the chance of breech presentation at birth and caesarean section. There is less risk to the baby and mother when the baby is head-down at the time of birth. ECV is a procedure by which the baby, who is lying bottom first, is manipulated through the mother’s abdominal wall to the head-down position. The review of eight studies, involving 1308 women, found that If the baby is not head down after about 36 weeks of pregnancy, ECV reduces the chance that the baby will present as breech at the time of birth, reduces the chance of caesarean birth, and increases the chance that a head-first vaginal delivery will be achieved External cephalic version
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Diagnostic Impact of Limited, Screening Obstetric Ultrasound When Performed by Midwives in Rural Uganda
    Journal of Perinatology (2014) 34, 508–512 © 2014 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 0743-8346/14 www.nature.com/jp ORIGINAL ARTICLE The diagnostic impact of limited, screening obstetric ultrasound when performed by midwives in rural Uganda JO Swanson1, MG Kawooya2, DL Swanson1, DS Hippe1, P Dungu-Matovu2 and R Nathan1 OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic impact of limited obstetric ultrasound (US) in identifying high-risk pregnancies when used as a screening tool by midwives in rural Uganda. STUDY DESIGN: This was an institutional review board-approved prospective study of expecting mothers in rural Uganda who underwent clinical and US exams as part of their standard antenatal care visit in a local health center in the Isingiro district of Uganda. The midwives documented clinical impressions before performing a limited obstetric US on the same patient. The clinical findings were then compared with the subsequent US findings to determine the diagnostic impact. The midwives were US-naive before participating in the 6-week training course for limited obstetric US. RESULT: Midwife-performed screening obstetric US altered the clinical diagnosis in up to 12% clinical encounters. This diagnostic impact is less (6.7 to 7.4%) if the early third trimester diagnosis of malpresentation is excluded. The quality assurance review of midwives’ imaging demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosing gestational number, and 90% sensitivity and 96% specificity in the diagnosis of fetal presentation. CONCLUSION: Limited, screening obstetric US performed by midwives with focused, obstetric US training demonstrates the diagnostic impact for identifying conditions associated with high-risk pregnancies in 6.7 to 12% of patients screened.
    [Show full text]
  • Breech Presentation at Delivery: a Marker for Congenital Anomaly?
    Journal of Perinatology (2014) 34, 11–15 & 2014 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 0743-8346/14 www.nature.com/jp ORIGINAL ARTICLE Breech presentation at delivery: a marker for congenital anomaly? D Mostello1, JJ Chang2, F Bai2, J Wang3, C Guild4, K Stamps2 and TL Leet2,{ OBJECTIVE: To determine whether congenital anomalies are associated with breech presentation at the time of birth. STUDY DESIGN: A population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted among 460 147 women with singleton live births using the Missouri Birth Defects Registry, which includes all defects diagnosed during the first year of life. Maternal and obstetric characteristics and outcomes between breech and cephalic presentation groups were compared using w2-square statistic and Student’s t-test. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULT: At least one congenital anomaly was more likely present among infants breech at birth (11.7%) than in those with cephalic presentation (5.1%), whether full-term (9.4 vs 4.6%) or preterm (20.1 vs 11.6%). The relationship between breech presentation and congenital anomaly was stronger among full-term births (aOR 2.09, CI 1.96, 2.23, term vs 1.40, CI 1.26, 1.55, preterm), but not in all categories of anomalies. CONCLUSION: Breech presentation at delivery is a marker for the presence of congenital anomaly. Infants delivered breech deserve special scrutiny for the presence of malformation. Journal of Perinatology (2014) 34, 11–15;
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Obstetrical Coding Production of This Document Is Made Possible by Financial Contributions from Health Canada and Provincial and Territorial Governments
    ICD-10-CA | CCI A Guide to Obstetrical Coding Production of this document is made possible by financial contributions from Health Canada and provincial and territorial governments. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Health Canada or any provincial or territorial government. Unless otherwise indicated, this product uses data provided by Canada’s provinces and territories. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be reproduced unaltered, in whole or in part and by any means, solely for non-commercial purposes, provided that the Canadian Institute for Health Information is properly and fully acknowledged as the copyright owner. Any reproduction or use of this publication or its contents for any commercial purpose requires the prior written authorization of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Reproduction or use that suggests endorsement by, or affiliation with, the Canadian Institute for Health Information is prohibited. For permission or information, please contact CIHI: Canadian Institute for Health Information 495 Richmond Road, Suite 600 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4H6 Phone: 613-241-7860 Fax: 613-241-8120 www.cihi.ca [email protected] © 2018 Canadian Institute for Health Information Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre Guide de codification des données en obstétrique. Table of contents About CIHI ................................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Twin Pregnancy with Triploidy and Co-Existing Live Twin Progressing to Viability: Case Study and Literature Review
    Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal Case Report Open Access Twin pregnancy with triploidy and co-existing live twin progressing to viability: Case study and literature review Abstract Volume 9 Issue 4 - 2018 Background: Twin pregnancies consisting of a triploid fetus with molar change and a 1,2 1,2 1,2 healthy coexisting fetus is an extremely rare phenomenon. Triploidy rarely advances to the Cingiloglu P, Yeung T, Sekar R second trimester, most resulting in a miscarriage, termination or stillbirth. Only five cases 1Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Women’s and Newborn of a triploid fetus and a healthy co-twin have been reported in literature. We present the first Services, Australia documented case of a live delivery of both triploid fetus and coexisting viable twin. 2University of Queensland, Australia Case presentation: A 23-year old woman, gravida 2, para 1 was admitted at 26+4 weeks Correspondence: Pinar Cingiloglu, Women’s and Newborn gestation with DCDA twins and a shortened cervix. Sonography revealed polyhydramnios, Services, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Bowen Bridge an abnormal cystic placenta, and small aortic valve for the presenting twin. Emergency Road&, Butterfield St, Herston Queensland Australia, Tel +61 caesarean section was performed at 28 weeks gestation for cord prolapse. Twin A was born (07) 3646 8111, Email [email protected] a live infant with ambiguous genitalia, syndactyly, epicanthic folds and cerebral cysts. Twin B was born a healthy live male. Histopathology revealed features consistent with Received: June 13, 2018 | Published: July 13, 2018 partial hydatidiform mole, and cytogenetics revealed a diandric triploidy in twin A.
    [Show full text]
  • Gtg-No-20B-Breech-Presentation.Pdf
    Guideline No. 20b December 2006 THE MANAGEMENT OF BREECH PRESENTATION This is the third edition of the guideline originally published in 1999 and revised in 2001 under the same title. 1. Purpose and scope The aim of this guideline is to provide up-to-date information on methods of delivery for women with breech presentation. The scope is confined to decision making regarding the route of delivery and choice of various techniques used during delivery. It does not include antenatal or postnatal care. External cephalic version is the topic of a separate RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 20a: ECV and Reducing the Incidence of Breech Presentation. 2. Background The incidence of breech presentation decreases from about 20% at 28 weeks of gestation to 3–4% at term, as most babies turn spontaneously to the cephalic presentation. This appears to be an active process whereby a normally formed and active baby adopts the position of ‘best fit’ in a normal intrauterine space. Persistent breech presentation may be associated with abnormalities of the baby, the amniotic fluid volume, the placental localisation or the uterus. It may be due to an otherwise insignificant factor such as cornual placental position or it may apparently be due to chance. There is higher perinatal mortality and morbidity with breech than cephalic presentation, due principally to prematurity, congenital malformations and birth asphyxia or trauma.1,2 Caesarean section for breech presentation has been suggested as a way of reducing the associated perinatal problems2,3 and in many countries in Northern Europe and North America caesarean section has become the normal mode of breech delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • Advising Women with Diabetes in Pregnancy to Express Breastmilk In
    Articles Advising women with diabetes in pregnancy to express breastmilk in late pregnancy (Diabetes and Antenatal Milk Expressing [DAME]): a multicentre, unblinded, randomised controlled trial Della A Forster, Anita M Moorhead, Susan E Jacobs, Peter G Davis, Susan P Walker, Kerri M McEgan, Gillian F Opie, Susan M Donath, Lisa Gold, Catharine McNamara, Amanda Aylward, Christine East, Rachael Ford, Lisa H Amir Summary Lancet 2017; 389: 2204–13 Background Infants of women with diabetes in pregnancy are at increased risk of hypoglycaemia, admission to a See Editorial page 2163 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and not being exclusively breastfed. Many clinicians encourage women with See Comment page 2167 diabetes in pregnancy to express and store breastmilk in late pregnancy, yet no evidence exists for this practice. We Judith Lumley Centre, School of aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of antenatal expressing in women with diabetes in pregnancy. Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Methods We did a multicentre, two-group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals in Victoria, Australia. Melbourne, VIC, Australia (Prof D A Forster PhD, We recruited women with pre-existing or gestational diabetes in a singleton pregnancy from 34 to 37 weeks’ gestation A M Moorhead RM, and randomly assigned them (1:1) to either expressing breastmilk twice per day from 36 weeks’ gestation (antenatal L H Amir PhD); Royal Women’s expressing) or standard care (usual midwifery and obstetric care, supplemented by support from a diabetes educator). Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Randomisation was done with a computerised random number generator in blocks of size two and four, and was Australia (Prof D A Forster, A M Moorhead, S E Jacobs MD, stratified by site, parity, and diabetes type.
    [Show full text]
  • External Cephalic Version (Ecv) Author: Scope
    Sponsor: Woman, Child and Youth Name: External Cephalic Version MATERNITY UNIT GUIDELINE: EXTERNAL CEPHALIC VERSION (ECV) AUTHOR: Consultant Obstetrician SCOPE: All obstetricians and midwives working in maternity. PURPOSE: To inform all health professions of the assessment criteria and procedure for an ECV. ECV is a procedure to rotate the fetus from a breech or transverse DEFINITIONS: presentation to a cephalic presentation by external manipulation of the mother’s abdomen INDICATIONS: Should be offered to women with a non-cephalic fetal lie to improve their chance of a vaginal cephalic birth ABSOLUTE Significant uterine anomaly (eg. bicornuate uterus); Indications for caesarean birth irrespective of fetal presentation; CONTRAINDICATIONS Antepartum haemorrhage; Placenta praevia; Severe maternal cardiac disease; Ruptured membranes (given risk of cord prolapse could be considered in theatre) Abnormal fetal monitoring suggestive of fetal hypoxia; Hyper-extended fetal head; Significant fetal anomaly (eg. hydrocephaly); Abruptio placenta; Fetal growth restriction (severe and/or abnormal dopplers); Multiple pregnancy – though may be considered for the second twin after birth of the first twin. RELATIVE Previous caesarean birth; CONTRAINDICATIONS Previous uterine surgery; Maternal obesity; Fetal growth restriction (mild with normal dopplers); Decreased liquor volume; Severe pregnancy induced hypertension; Established labour; Factors Decreasing Success Nulliparity Rates Anterior, lateral or cornual placenta Decreased amniotic
    [Show full text]
  • Obstetrics Seventh Edition
    PROLOGObstetrics seventh edition The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE PHYSICIANS Obstetrics seventh edition Assessment Book The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE PHYSICIANS ISBN 978-1-934984-22-2 Copyright 2013 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, posted on the Internet, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. 12345/76543 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 409 12th Street, SW PO Box 96920 Washington, DC 20090-6920 Contributors PROLOG Editorial and Advisory Committee CHAIR MEMBERS Ronald T. Burkman Jr, MD Bernard Gonik, MD Professor of Obstetrics and Professor and Fann Srere Chair of Gynecology Perinatal Medicine Tufts University School of Medicine Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine Division of General Obstetrics and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Gynecology Department of Obstetrics and Wayne State University School of Gynecology Medicine Baystate Medical Center Detroit, Michigan Springfield, Massachusetts Louis Weinstein, MD Past Paul A. and Eloise B. Bowers Professor and Chair Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Linda Van Le, MD Leonard Palumbo Distinguished Professor UNC Gynecologic Oncology University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill, North Carolina PROLOG Task Force for Obstetrics, Seventh Edition COCHAIRS MEMBERS Vincenzo Berghella, MD Cynthia Chazotte, MD Director, Division of Maternal–Fetal Professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Medicine Gynecology and Women’s Health Professor, Department of Obstetrics Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Gynecology Weiler Hospital of the Albert Einstein Thomas Jefferson University College of Medicine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bronx, New York George A.
    [Show full text]
  • Pretest Obstetrics and Gynecology
    Obstetrics and Gynecology PreTestTM Self-Assessment and Review Notice Medicine is an ever-changing science. As new research and clinical experience broaden our knowledge, changes in treatment and drug therapy are required. The authors and the publisher of this work have checked with sources believed to be reliable in their efforts to provide information that is complete and generally in accord with the standards accepted at the time of publication. However, in view of the possibility of human error or changes in medical sciences, neither the authors nor the publisher nor any other party who has been involved in the preparation or publication of this work warrants that the information contained herein is in every respect accurate or complete, and they disclaim all responsibility for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from use of the information contained in this work. Readers are encouraged to confirm the information contained herein with other sources. For example and in particular, readers are advised to check the prod- uct information sheet included in the package of each drug they plan to administer to be certain that the information contained in this work is accurate and that changes have not been made in the recommended dose or in the contraindications for administration. This recommendation is of particular importance in connection with new or infrequently used drugs. Obstetrics and Gynecology PreTestTM Self-Assessment and Review Twelfth Edition Karen M. Schneider, MD Associate Professor Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences University of Texas Houston Medical School Houston, Texas Stephen K. Patrick, MD Residency Program Director Obstetrics and Gynecology The Methodist Health System Dallas Dallas, Texas New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • MR Imaging of the Fetus in Utero II: a Practical Guide to Systematic Analysis - …
    MR Imaging of the Fetus in utero II: A Practical Guide to Systematic Analysis - ….. and the rest (non-CNS) A Robinson, S Blaser, S Pantazi, A Toi, D Chitayat, M Gundogan, G Ryan The Hospital for Sick Children Departments of Diagnostic Imaging and Clinical & Metabolic Genetics Mount Sinai Hospital Departments of Medical Imaging, Prenatal Diagnosis & Medical Genetics and Obstetrics & Gynaecology The University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Purpose Biometry (see CNS poster) Check situs – work out which side is fetal left/right BEFORE checking internal organs Check the kidneys & bladder Most of our examinations are performed for CNS indications, with which most neuroradiologists should feel comfortable. However these examinations also include a variable amount of non-CNS anatomy with which neuroradiologists might feel less comfortable, but which should be reviewed routinely also, and not simply glossed over or even worse ignored. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis of was performed in over 190 consecutive fetal MR examinations performed for CNS and non- CNS indications. Analysis included, but was not limited to, evaluation of thoracic and abdominal situs, lung parenchyma, diaphragms, liver and gallbladder, stomach, kidneys (including biometry), bladder, cord insertion, cord vessels, placental site and morphology, and amniotic fluid volume. Abdominal circumference Normal situs Normal levocardia Normal aortic arch Normal kidneys - axial Multicystic dysplastic kidneys Normal kidneys - sagittal Horseshoe kidney Conclusion Correct level
    [Show full text]
  • Physiological and Pathological Control of Fetal Heart Rate Patterns
    Cardiotocography – Physiological and Pathological Control of Fetal Heart Rate Patterns Terence Lao Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong Cardiotocography • A continuous recording of the fetal heart rate and uterine activities by electronic means • Limitations in its usefulness is related to – Problems with the monitors – Lack of understanding of pathophysiology – Carelessness / laziness in the attendants Basic Understanding of the Fetal Heart Rate Patterns • Represents fetal physiology • Different patterns represent the different results of the interaction of many factors • Fetal compromise only diagnosed in association with clinical assessment and interpreted with respect to the probability of fetal compromise Fetal Response to Hypoxia (1) Hypoxia ←↓Blood Flow ↓↓ ↓ PO2 ↑PCO2 ↓↓ Metabolic acidosis ← Respiratory acidosis ⇓ Redistribution of blood flow to vital organs Bradycardia, and slightly ↓cardiac output ↓oxygen consumption Fetal Response to Hypoxia (2) ↓↓ FHR variability FHR ↓ variability, retained / ↑ rate decelerations ⇓⇓ Compensated State Decompensated State (Normal cortical functions (Decrease cerebral cerebral oxygenation oxygenation, eventual maintained, can last up cellular damage to 60 min in experimental animals) Umbilical blood flow and hypoxia • Acute moderate hypoxia → no effect • Severe moderate hypoxia →↓due to myocardial depression, catecholamines What is Fetal Distress (1) ? = Hypoxaemia (low PO2) ? = Acidaemia (low pH) ? = General depression (low Apgar Score) But-
    [Show full text]
  • The Physiology of the Uterus in Labor
    The Physiology of the Uterus in Labor D. N. DANFORTH, M.D., R. J. GRAHAM, B.M. and A. C. IVY, M.D.l HE purpose of this article is to uterine horns (8). This ring becomes T synthesize into a rather complete fairly evident during labor at the junc­ picture the experimental observations tion of the upper and lower segments. that have been made during the past It is a more or less definite, tapering ten years in our laboratory regarding ledge, the formation of which is due the processes concerned in the evacu­ to the greater thickness or "retraction" ation of the uterus. of the muscle fibers of the upper than the lower segment. (This r ing is the The Anatomic and Physiologic " fundal or cornal sphincter" in the Divisions of the Uterus dog.) In obstructed labors it becomes It is important first to obtain a clear a very pronounced ring or band and concept (a) of the anatomical divisions is then called Bandl's ring. The ap­ of the human uterus, which may be pearance of a Bandl's ring means --­ traced directly to those in lower forms, threatened rupture of the uterus in the and (b) of the obstetrical or physio­ lower segment ; it is a pathological re­ logical divisions. See figure 1. traction ring. This is a subject that has been greatly III. The lower uterine segment is an­ confused because our knowledge of the alogous to the isthmus uteri oj Asch­ gross and microscopic anatomy of the off in the non-pregnant uterus. In human uterus, and of the embryology, woman its upper level is generally comparative anatomy, and physiology marked by the reflection of the per­ of the uterus has developed in ~ hap­ itoneum.
    [Show full text]