Pregnancy in uremic patients: an eventful journey

Renal damage, which can be caused by gestational anomalies such as pre-eclampsia, carries a risk of gestational complications; the greatest risk being in women who become pregnant while on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. If this rare event occurs, there is a marked increase in the risk of pre-eclampsia, early uterine contractions and hydramnios, hypertensive crisis, preterm delivery and intrauterine growth retard. Furthermore, newborns are almost always of low birthweight. Patients who undergo renal transplantation are another high-risk category. In such cases, the pregnancy itself can compromise the success of the transplant and the immunosuppressive therapy correlated to it can become a threat to the course of the pregnancy and normal fetal growth. Therefore, in view of the lack of appropriate guidelines for the best possible approach to the treatment of women on dialysis or of those with a renal transplantation, it is best to advise these patients against becoming pregnant and/or to provide a valid counselling service illustrating the extreme difficulties and dangers involved in becoming pregnant.     

When is a pathology review indicated in endometrial cancer?

OBJECTIVE: Discrepancies may exist between an original pathology report and formal pathology review, with subsequent implications for treatment. We conducted a study of pathology review in endometrial cancer from a population-based study to identify areas of discrepancy and effect on treatment. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada from 1996 to 2000. We identified hysterectomy cases from patients with endometrial cancer that were subject to formal pathology review by a gynecologic pathologist at one of six tertiary care centers. Sarcomas and other rare histologic subtypes with fewer than five cases were excluded. We evaluated discrepancy between original pathology and review by demographics, stage, grade, and risk group. Four risk groups were defined: 1) low (stage I), 2) intermediate (stage I and II), 3) high-risk (stage I and II), and 4) advanced stage (all stage III and IV). Reclassification from one risk group to another upon pathology review represented a potential change in treatment. Factors associated with significant discrepancy were identified by a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: Formal pathology review was available on 450 cases. There were no differences by age, year, or hospital type. The overall discrepancy rate was 42.7% (95% confidence interval 38.2-47.3%). The intermediate-risk group had the highest rate of reclassification into another group (33.1%). The most significant rates of discrepancy were associated with endometrioid grades 2 and 3 tumors and stage IIA disease (39.8%, 50.9%, and 79.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was significant discrepancy between original pathology and formal review in endometrial cancer, with implications for guidelines on pathology review at a population level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III     

Long-term outcomes: what should the focus be?

The neonatal intervention trials of the 1980s and early 1990s focused primarily on short-term outcomes. Contemporary clinical trials have recognized the importance of longer-term outcomes but have rarely been powered to achieve that aim. This review discusses important and clinically relevant outcomes that future trials should be powered to address and identifies the challenges facing the neonatal clinical trials community. These challenges include consensus definitions of relevant outcomes that are objective and validated, variability among centers in populations and practices, and the need for predictive surrogate markers of long-term outcomes. Future trials must be designed and powered to address the potential for harm as well as the prospect of benefit.     

Common iliac artery injury during the abdominal entry phase of gynecologic laparoscopy: a case report

BACKGROUND: Although not frequent, major vascular injury (MVI) during laparoscopy in gynecologic surgery can cause a sharp increase in morbidity and mortality. CASE: During the abdominal entry stage of operative laparoscopy, perforation of the left common iliac artery occurred. Prolonged hiccups might have played a role. CONCLUSION: Entry into the abdominal cavity during laparoscopy should be performed with the safer, controlled technique. In spite of the fact that no surgical procedure or de- * vice is absolutely foolproof, the laparoscopic abdominal approach should be performed with the technique that maximally reduces the likelihood of MVI. Once a major vascular injury is recognized or suspected, immediate conversion to laparotomy should be considered.