Background: Schwannomatosis is a relatively rare disorder and is related to neurofibromatosis type 2. Although there is clinical overlap between schwannomatosis and neurofibromatosis type 2, these diseases have to be regarded as separate entities due to the genetic origin and course of the disease. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted for relevant studies using Pubmed and Cochrane databases to discuss the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic criteria, pathological and imaging features, treatment and genetics of schwannomatosis. Results: Germline mutations SMARCB1 and LZTRI together with the NF2 gene play a role in the pathophysiology of schwannomatosis. The most common symptom is pain with affection of the spine and peripheral nerves in the majority of patients. High quality contrast enhanced MRI scan is the imaging modality of choice. Treatment is conservative if asymptomatic and surgical if symptomatic. The goal is symptom control with preservation of neurological function. Conclusion: Schwannomatosis is a relatively rare disorder in which the main goal is to preserve neurological function.

Background: In 2015, we performed a cost analysis of a prenatal remote monitoring (RM) program compared with conventional care (CC) for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD). Introduction: We investigated where the cost savings were distributed by dividing our patient population into three subgroups, according to the gestational age (GA) at the time of delivery: (1) <34 weeks; (2) 34-37 weeks; and (3) >37 weeks of GA. Materials and Methods: Healthcare costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills at Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015-2016. Cost comparisons were made from the perspectives of the Belgium national healthcare system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and the costs to individual patients. Results: A total of 256 pregnant women were included, 80 (31.25%) of whom received RM and 176 (68.75%) of whom received CC. The greatest difference in costs between RM and CC was in the group that delivered before 34 weeks of GA, followed by the group who delivered after 37 weeks of GA, and then the group of women who delivered at 34-37 weeks of GA. Most of the cost savings were in neonatal care, for both the three separate study subgroups and the total study group. Discussion and Conclusion: Our data showed that RM is more cost-effective than CC for pregnant women with GHD. Further investigation of the effects of RM on the long-term economic and social costs is recommended, together with an analysis of the price that should be asked for RM services.

No abstract