Acute abdomen with a parasitic smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) in pregnancy; a unique case report.

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Diagnosis of a smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) during pregnancy is rare. Furthermore; the investigation of an intra-abdominal mass during pregnancy is clinically challenging due to anatomical changes and additional considerations of the developing fetus and radiation exposure. The unusual nature and diagnostic dilemma of such a case warrants a case report to serve as an educational prompt to clinicians who may encounter pregnant patients with undifferentiated intra-abdominal masses and/or suspecting of STUMP. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a rare case of a parasitic STUMP diagnosed during pregnancy. The patient presented with a new umbilical hernia and deranged liver function tests (LFT's) during her third trimester. MRI reported a large mass in the left mid flank with intra-abdominal varices extending into the umbilical hernia. She went on to develop an acute abdomen requiring laparotomy where a parasitic fibroid adherent to the omentum was excised and a preterm infant was delivered via caesarean section. Histology was difficult due to pregnancy related changes but ultimately confirmed a diagnosis of STUMP. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: STUMP in pregnancy is rare and diagnosis is further complicated by histological challenges due to pregnancy related changes. Postoperative diagnosis is challenging due to lack of universally accepted diagnostic criteria and Uncertainty regarding prognostic factors makes management and follow-up of patients with STUMP challenging. Studies have shown that younger patients are more likely to demonstrate recurrence. CONCLUSION: Investigation and management of intra-abdominal masses in pregnancy is challenging. It requires timely multi-disciplinary team (MDT) input. Additional complications and considerations relate to the preterm fetus. Knowledge and understanding of these difficulties will better equip clinicians working with such patients to formulate a structured and well informed approach to the pregnant patient with a new intra-abdominal mass. Diagnosis of STUMP during pregnancy may be challenging for the pathologist and require further exert opinion.

Evaluating the value of intrapartum fetal scalp blood sampling to predict adverse neonatal outcomes: A UK multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of fetal scalp blood sampling (FBS) as an adjunct test to cardiotocography, to predict adverse neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A multicentre service evaluation observational study in forty-four maternity units in the UK. We collected data retrospectively on pregnant women with singleton pregnancy who received FBS in labour using a standardised data collection tool. The primary outcome was prediction of neonatal acidaemia diagnosed as umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.05, the secondary outcomes were the prediction of Apgar scores<7 at 1st and 5th minutes and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). We evaluated the correlation between the last FBS blood gas before birth and the umbilical cord blood and adjusted for time intervals. We constructed 2 × 2 tables to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and generated receiver operating curves to report on the Area Under the Curve (AUC). RESULTS: In total, 1422 samples were included in the analysis; pH values showed no correlation (r = 0.001, p = 0.9) in samples obtained within an hour (n = 314), or within half an hour from birth (n = 115) (r=-0.003, p = 0.9). A suboptimal FBS pH value (<7.25) had a poor sensitivity (22%) and PPV (4.9%) to predict neonatal acidaemia with high specificity (87.3%) and NPV (97.4%). Similar performance was noted to predict Apgar scores <7 at 1st (sensitivity 14.5%, specificity 87.5%, PPV 23.4%, NPV 79.6%) and 5th minute (sensitivity 20.3%, specificity 87.4%, PPV 7.6%, NPV 95.6%), and admission to NICU (sensitivity 20.3%, specificity 87.5%, PPV 13.3%, NPV 92.1%). The AUC for FBS pH to predict neonatal acidaemia was 0.59 (95%CI 0.59-0.68, p = 0.3) with similar performance to predict Apgar scores<7 at 1st minute (AUC 0.55, 95%CI 0.51-0.59, p = 0.004), 5th minute (AUC 0.55, 95%CI 0.48-0.62, p = 0.13), and admission to NICU (AUC 0.58, 95%CI 0.52-0.64, p = 0.002). Forty-one neonates had acidaemia (2.8%, 41/1422) at birth. There was no significant correlation in pH values between the FBS and the umbilical cord blood in this subgroup adjusted for sampling time intervals (r = 0.03, p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: As an adjunct tool to cardiotocography, FBS offered limited value to predict neonatal acidaemia, low Apgar Scores and admission to NICU.

Light output from six battery operated dental curing lights.

Light Curing Units (LCUs) are used daily in almost every dental office to photocure resins, but because the light is so bright, the user is unable to tell visually if there are any differences between different LCUs. This study evaluated the light output from six dental LCUs: Elipar Deep Cure-S (3M ESPE), Bluephase G2 (Ivoclar Vivadent), Translux 2Wave (Heraeus Kulzer), Optilight Prime (Gnatus), Slim Blast (First Medica) and Led.B (Guilin Woodpecker) with a fully charged battery, after 50, and again after 100, 20second light exposures. For each situation, the radiant power was measured 10 times with a laboratory-grade power meter. Then, the emission spectrum was measured using a fiber-optic spectrometer followed by an analysis of the light beam profile. It was found there were significant differences in the LCU power and the irradiance values between the LCUs (p<0.01). The Optilight Prime and Slim Blast LCUs showed a significant reduction in light output after a 50 and 100 exposures, while Bluephase G2 exhibited a significant reduction only after 100 exposures (p<0.01). The Bluephase G2 and Translux 2Wave delivered an emission spectrum that had two distinct wavelength emission peaks. Only the Elipar Deep Cure-S and Bluephase G2 LCUs displayed homogeneous light beam profiles, the other LCUs exhibited highly non-homogeneous light beam profiles. It was concluded that contemporary LCUs could have very different light output characteristics. Both manufacturers and researchers should provide more information about the light output from LCUs.