Laparoscopic Management of an Intrauterine Fallopian Tube Incarceration After Curettage for a Non-progressing Pregnancy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To report and demonstrate a case of a laparoscopic repair of an intrauterine fallopian tube incarceration as complication of curettage. DESIGN: A step-by-step explanation of the surgery using video (instructive video) (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING: University Hospital Estaing, Clermont-Ferrand, France. PATIENT: A 29-year-old woman experiencing a nonevolving pregnancy at 8 weeks underwent curettage. After 9 months, she complained of abnormal vaginal discharge. Ultrasound evaluation showed a right parauterine mass. She reported a maternal medical history of ovarian cancer in a context of Lynch syndrome. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a right hydrosalpinx 12 mm in diameter, with a suspect fimbriae lesion of the tube and a 7-mm endometriosis nodule of the uterine torus. INTERVENTION: We decided to explore the fallopian tube by laparoscopy and to perform hysteroscopy. A fallopian tube incarceration was suspected during hysteroscopy: a defect of the uterine wall was observed, through which there was protrusion of a tubal fimbriae. The laparoscopic view of the pelvis confirmed incarceration of the right fallopian tube through the uterine wall. It was carefully extracted out of the uterine defect, and the uterine wall defect was repaired with an X-point using Monocryl 1. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A tubal patency test was performed, which was positive on both sides. Because phimosis responsible for the hydrosalpinx had been treated, salpingectomy was not performed. CONCLUSION: Curettage for miscarriage or undesired pregnancy is not exempt from complications, such as hemorrhage, simple perforation, and infection. Intrauterine fallopian tube incarceration is uncommon but can affect fertility. This diagnosis is important to avoid destruction of the fimbriae and necrosis of the tube and also to reduce the risk of ectopic pregnancy.

The Use of a Software-Assisted Method to Estimate Fetal Weight at and Near Term Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to apply a semi-automated calculation method of fetal body volume and, thus, of magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight (MR-EFW) prior to planned delivery and to evaluate whether the technique of measurement could be simplified while remaining accurate. METHODS: MR-EFW was calculated using a semi-automated method at 38.6 weeks of gestation in 36 patients and compared to the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Per patient, 8 sequences were acquired with a slice thickness of 4-8 mm and an intersection gap of 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 20 mm. The median absolute relative errors for MR-EFW and the time of planimetric measurements were calculated for all 8 sequences and for each method (assisted vs. PACS), and the difference between the methods was calculated. RESULTS: The median delivery weight was 3,280 g. The overall median relative error for all 288 MR-EFW calculations was 2.4% using the semi-automated method and 2.2% for the PACS method. Measurements did not differ between the 8 sequences using the assisted method (p = 0.313) or the PACS (p = 0.118), while the time of planimetric measurement decreased significantly with a larger gap (p < 0.001) and in the assisted method compared to the PACS method (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our simplified MR-EFW measurement showed a dramatic decrease in time of planimetric measurement without a decrease in the accuracy of weight estimates.

Repeatability of estimated fetal weight: Comparison between MR imaging versus 2D ultrasound in at- and near-term patients.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer variability and the impact of operator experience on the estimation of fetal weight (EFW) as measured by 2-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We estimated fetal weight in 46 singleton pregnancies at 35.6-41.4 weeks gestation using 2D-US according to the Hadlock formula and using MR imaging according to the equation developed by Baker. Each examination was performed twice, once by an inexperienced operator and once by an experienced operator. The MR-EFW was derived from the planimetric measurement of fetal body volume (FBV) using an assisted semi-automated method. Intra- and inter-observer variability was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of maternal BMI, delivery weight, diabetes and fetal gender on the differences in US-EFW between the inexperienced and experienced operators. RESULTS: US-EFW showed higher intra-observer variability than MR-EFW, irrespective of operator experience. The 95% limits of agreement of MR were narrower compared with those of the US measurements. Similarly, US-EFW showed higher inter-observer variability than MR-EFW. MR-EFW improvement over 2D-US for the limits of agreement was 77.9% for intra-observer variability and 74.5% for inter-observer variability. Regression analysis showed that the differences between US-EFW measurements were not related to any of the tested variables. CONCLUSIONS: Operator experience has a marginal impact on the variability of US-EFW and no impact on MR-EFW variability. The variability in US-EFW measurements is unpredictable.