Hospital stay was equally short, whereas laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis.

No abstract

Introduction:Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free fetal DNA has increasingly been adopted as a screening tool for fetal aneuploidies. Several studies have discussed benefits and limitations of NIPT compared with both ultrasound and invasive procedures, but in spite of some shortcomings NIPT has become extensively used within the last 5 years. This study aims to describe the current use of NIPT in Europe, Australia and the USA. Material and methods:We conducted a survey to describe the current use of NIPT.Colleagues filled in a simple email-based questionnaire on NIPT in their own country, providing information on (a) access to NIPT, (b) NIPT's chromosomal coverage, (c) financial coverage of NIPT for the patient and (d) the proportion of women using NIPT in pregnancy. Some data are best clinical estimates, due to a lack of national data. Results:In Europe, 14 countries have adopted NIPT into a national policy/program. Two countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) offer NIPT for all pregnant women, whereas most other European countries have implemented NIPT as an offer for higher risk women after first trimester screening. In Australia, either combined first trimester screening (cFTS) or NIPT is used as a primary prenatal screening test. In the USA, there are no national consensus policies on the use of NIPT; however, NIPT is widely implemented. In most European countries offering NIPT, the proportion of | 723 GADSBØLL et AL.

Objective To assess prospectively the risk of fetal loss associated with chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis (AC) following combined first-trimester screening (cFTS) for Down syndrome.Methods This was a nationwide population-based study (Danish Fetal Medicine Database, 2008-2010