RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In recent years, perinatal viability has shifted from 24 to 22 weeks of gestation at many institutions after improvements in survival in neonates delivered at the limit of viability. Monitoring these fetuses is essential because antenatal interventions with resuscitation efforts are available for patients at risk of delivery at the limit of viability. However, fetal monitoring using biophysical profiles has not been extensively studied in very preterm pregnancies, particularly in the periviable period (20 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) investigate whether the completion of biophysical profiles within 30 minutes is feasible in very preterm pregnancies, and (2) determine the average observation time required to achieve a score of 8 out of 8 in very preterm pregnancies from 20 weeks 0 days to 31 weeks 6 days. STUDY DESIGN: This study prospectively evaluated biophysical scores in singleton pregnancies undergoing routine ultrasonography at or near viability from 20 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days (periviable or group I), 24 weeks 0 days to 27 weeks 6 days (group II), and 28 weeks 0 days to 31 weeks 6 days (group III). The results and duration of biophysical profiles were compared with those of a control group (32 weeks 0 days to 35 weeks 6 days) undergoing indicated fetal surveillance. Biophysical profiles were performed for all studied pregnancies until a score of 8 out of 8 was obtained. When >1 biophysical profile was obtained during pregnancy, each was analyzed individually. Pregnancies with fetal anomalies or obstetrical/medical indications for fetal well-being surveillance were excluded. Analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Data were collected for 123 participants, yielding 79, 75, and 72 studies for groups I, II, and III, respectively. The control group included 42 patients, yielding 140 studies. At 30 minutes, 80% (63/79) of the studies in the periviable group had a score of 8 out of 8, as opposed to 100% (140/140) in the control group (P<.001). The mean±standard deviation time in minutes to achieve a biophysical score of 8 out of 8 was 23.3±10.1 in the periviable group, as opposed to 9.4±6.5 in controls (P<.001). Extending the study to +2 standard deviations (43.6 minutes) in the periviable group resulted in 97% (77/79) of the scans scoring 8 out of 8 in the absence of adverse outcomes. In the other groups, a biophysical score of 8 out of 8 within 30 minutes was obtained in 97% (73/75) and 100% (72/72) in groups II and III, respectively; the mean±standard deviation times were 17.1±8.4 minutes (group II) and 13.1±7.3 minutes (group III). No adverse outcomes developed during the study participation in groups I to III. CONCLUSION: Biophysical scores of 8 out of 8 can be successfully achieved in low-risk periviable pregnancies (20 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days) within an observation time longer than the standard 30-minute duration. The time required to reach a score of 8 out of 8 decreases as gestation progresses. We suggest adjusting the observation time for biophysical profile completion according to the gestational age.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in function, performance, and preference between mechanical and microprocessor prosthetic knee control technologies. DESIGN: A-B-A-B reversal design. SETTING: Home, community, and laboratory environments. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one unilateral, transfemoral amputees. INTERVENTION: Mechanical control prosthetic knee versus microprocessor control prosthetic knee (Otto Bock C-Leg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stair rating, hill rating and time, obstacle course time, divided attention task accuracy and time, Amputee Mobility Predictor score, step activity, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire score, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score, self-reported frequency of stumbles and falls, and self-reported concentration required for ambulation. RESULTS: Stair descent score, hill descent time, and hill sound-side step length showed significant (P<.01) improvement with the C-Leg. Users reported a significant (P<.05) decrease in frequency of stumbles and falls, frustration with falling, and difficulty in multitasking while using the microprocessor knee. Subject satisfaction with the C-Leg was significantly (P<.001) greater than the mechanical control prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The study population showed improved performance when negotiating stairs and hills, reduced frequency of stumbling and falling, and a preference for the microprocessor control C-Leg as compared with the mechanical control prosthetic knee.