THE RELIABILITY OF URODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT IN CONFIRMATION OF STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE IN RELATION TO BONNEY TEST.

According to the International Continence Society, stress (static) urinary incontinence is defined as any involuntary loss of urine on effort or physical exertion, due to which intravesical pressure overcomes urethral pressure, with no detrusor activity. Urodynamic testing accurately assesses the function of the bladder and urethra. The urodynamic assessment includes three tests: cystometry, uroflowmetry and profilometry (determination of urethral pressure profile). Prior to urodynamic assessment, it is mandatory to rule out urinary tract infection since it is an invasive test. Urethral profilometry is a technique that measures pressure in the urethra and bladder at rest, during stressful actions, and during the act of miction. Its main purpose is to evaluate the sphincter mechanism. During the examination, a special catheter is used, which is being slowly pulled out from the bladder neck throughout the urethra, with continuous recording of intraurethral pressure. In addition to measuring urethral pressures, stress urinary incontinence is also very successfully proven by the cough test and Bonney test. If, on forced cough, the urine escapes uncontrollably, and continence is restored by finger lifting the neck of the bladder, the diagnosis of static incontinence is confirmed. At our urogynecologic clinic, urodynamic examination is being routinely performed. In the present study, we included patients previously treated for urinary stress incontinence and compared their results of urodynamic assessment to the results of Bonney test. Of the 43 subjects in whom stress incontinence was proven with Bonney test, we recorded an appropriate profilometry result in 13 cases.

ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSIS OF MACROSOMIA AMONG WOMEN WITH GESTATIONAL DIABETES - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Pregnancies burdened with gestational diabetes (GDM) are more likely to end in birth of a macrosomic child, where the frequency of operative termination of pregnancy is more common, accompanied with more complications and injuries of both mother and child in comparison to the general population. The need to calculate fetal weight right before delivery has led to the development of numerous methods for greater estimation accuracy. We reviewed the related literature from 1980 to 2020, using the terms macrosomia, ultrasound assessment, gestational diabetes, and relevant articles were considered in preparation of this article. The most frequently used methods are based on two-dimensional ultrasound measurements of individual fetal biometric parameters and their combination in a mathematical regression model. Some methods involve the addition of other mother and child conditions to increase reliability of the method in recognizing macrosomia. In daily work, especially with pregnant women suffering from GDM, it is necessary to have reliable data on the estimated fetal weight before making the correct clinical decision on how to terminate the pregnancy. In this regard, we bring a review of the literature related to the assessment of fetal macrosomia, especially in women with GDM.

Diagnostic accuracy of modified Hadlock formula for fetal macrosomia in women with gestational diabetes and pregnancy weight gain above recommended.

OBJECTIVES: Women with gestational diabetes (GDM) and weight gain during pregnancy above recommended more often give birth to macrosomic children. The goal of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the modified formula for ultrasound assessment of fetal weight created in a pilot study using a similar specimen in comparison to the Hadlock-2 formula. METHODS: This is a prospective, cohort, applicative, observational, quantitative, and analytical study, which included 213 pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy, GDM, and pregnancy weight gain above recommended. Participants were consecutively followed in the time period between July 1st, 2016, and August 31st, 2020. Ultrasound estimations were made within three days before the delivery. Fetal weights estimated using both formulas were compared to the newborns' weights. RESULTS: A total of 133 fetal weight estimations were made. In comparison to the newborns' weight modified formula had significantly smaller deviation in weight estimation compared to the Hadlock-2 formula, higher frequency of deviation within 5% of newborns weights (78.2% [95% CI=0.74-0.83] vs. 60.2%), smaller frequency of deviations from 5 to 10% (19.5 vs. 33.8%) and above 10%, which was even more significant among macrosomic children. There were 36/50 (72%) correctly diagnosed cases of macrosomia by modified and 33/50 (66%) by Hadlock-2 formula. Area under the curve (AUC) for the modified formula was 0.854 (95% CI=0.776-0.932), and for the Hadlock-2 formula 0.824 (95% CI=0.740-0.908). The positive predictive value of the modified formula was 81.81%, the negative 97.91%. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of greater fetal weights, the modified formula showed greater precision.

Pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: Croatian multicentric survey.

We aimed to assess opinion and preferences of Croatian pregnant women regarding the prenatal screening tests for trisomies. The study was conducted in Zagreb, Split, Cakovec, Nova Gradiska, Gospic and Zlatar. It was organized in the public primary healthcare centers, among the pregnant volunteers during their first visit to an antenatal clinic (7-12 weeks pregnant). The respondents filled anonymous questionnaire reflecting their knowledge and attitudes to the screening options. In total, 437 completed questionnaires were selected. The average maternal age and the level of education differed significantly between the respondents in the respective cities (P < 0.001). Of the respondents with positive attitude towards screening, the majority would prefer the first-trimester combined test (160/219; 73.1%), while 37/219 (16.9%) opted for the second-trimester biochemical screening. The remaining 22/219 (10.0%) would accept only the ultrasound screening. Among the 224 respondents, who would accept the combined first-trimester test, 95 (42.4%) held a college and university degree, whereas among 59 women, who would choose the second-trimester biochemical screening, 14 were highly educated (23.7%). The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.016). The univariate regression analysis showed that age, level of education and previous information were significant variables predictive for the choice of the test; the level of education and previous knowledge remained significant in the multivariate model. The survey has revealed some of the points that should be improved in the future concept of screening program in Croatia. Health professionals should persist to mend women's knowledge about prenatal screening, taking into consideration women's preferences as well.