No abstract

Background Heterotopic pregnancy (HP) is a rare condition when at least two pregnancies are present simultaneously at different implantation sites and only one located in the uterine cavity. The majority of cases are diagnosed in the first trimester. Case presentation We present a unique case of HP diagnosed at 26 weeks of spontaneous pregnancy in a patient without any relevant risk factors. We performed an extensive review of HP cases from MEDLINE (PUBMED) published in English between 2005-2019 to prove this case's uniqueness. A 24-year-old woman presented because of threatened preterm birth. Despite treatment, pain aggravated, without progression of labor. An emergency ultrasound exam revealed free fluid in the abdominal cavity. Suspicion of active bleeding prompted the medical team to perform an exploratory laparotomy. The surgery team found a ruptured heterotopic pregnancy. This was an unexpected cause of nontraumatic hemoperitoneum at such advanced gestational age. The postoperative period was uneventful, and the intrauterine pregnancy continued to term. The final review included 86 out of 124 records. A total number of 509 cases were identified, but not all of them had complete data. The maximum reported gestational age at the time of diagnosis was 16 weeks of pregnancy, while our case became symptomatic and was diagnosed at 26 weeks of pregnancy. Conclusions Regardless of pregnancy age, HP can be a cause of hemoperitoneum, and it should be included in the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen in the second trimester.

No abstract

(1) Background: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) include gestational hypertension (GH), chronic hypertension (CH), preeclampsia (PE), and preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension (CH with PE). HDP is associated with several short and long-term perinatal and neonatal complications, such as newborn growth restriction and death. This study aimed to establish the association between HDP, newborn growth abnormalities, and neonatal outcome. (2) Methods: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of 63651 singleton deliveries. (3) Results: Univariate analysis showed a significantly increased risk of intrauterine and neonatal death associated with maternal hypertension and growth disorders. There were differences between growth charts used, with the highest risk of stillbirth for SGA defined by the Intergrowth chart (OR 17.2) and neonatal death for newborn growth restriction (NGR) based on Intergrowth (OR 19.1). Multivariate analysis showed that NGR is a stronger risk factor of neonatal death than SGA only. (4) Conclusions: HDP is significantly associated with growth abnormalities and is an independent risk factor of adverse outcomes. The presence of newborn growth restriction is strongly associated with the risk of neonatal death. The choice of growth chart has a substantial effect on the percentage of diagnosis of SGA and NGR.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> This paper aimed to assess the knowledge of healthcare professionals (obstetric and gynecology residents, specialists, and midwives) in the field of perinatal medicine regarding fetal growth diagnosis and management. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A questionnaire was created consisting of a set of questions regarding demographic data, methods of growth assessment, and management. It was a handout survey. The results were analyzed with the use of descriptive statistics and χ² analysis using the program Statistica. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 190 medical professionals have participated in the questionnaire. 86.3% of respondents agreed that pregnancy dating should be modified based on first-trimester ultrasound. 90.9% agreed that III trimester ultrasound has a ±15% margin of error. When asked which growth charts are best fit for assessing growth in a studied population, 10.7% marked standard, 37.4% reference, 26.2% customized, and 26.2% did not know the difference between the three choices. 60.3% stated that they use a growth chart to assess growth and qualify fetuses for monitoring. 70.2% used the 10th centile as a cutoff, 20.1% 5th centile, and 9.7% 3rd centile. Only 40.9% would diagnose fetal growth restriction based on fetal weight only. 28.7% using the 10th centile cutoff, 16.1% 5th centile, and 54.0% 3rd centile. Only a quarter of the respondents were able to name the growth chart or tool that they use for assessment. The most common responses were Yudkin, Hadlock, and online calculators of Fetal Medicina Barcelona and the Fetal Medicine Foundation. <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> A lot of confusion is observed primarily in the aspect of cutoff values for identification, subsequent monitoring, and management of fetal growth restriction. There is a need for extensive training and education in this field and uniform national recommendations.