The European journal of contraception & reproductive health care : the official journal of the European Society of Contraception · 2017
Pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn: a cause of failed medical and surgical management of second trimester pregnancy loss.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abd El-Halim Diaa, Torky Haitham A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We present the management of a case of failed medical and surgical management of second trimester pregnancy loss due to pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn.
CASE: A 16-week intrauterine fetal death singleton pregnancy was referred to us after failed medical and surgical termination of pregnancy. Ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis and showed minimal blood clots and fluid in the pouch of Douglas. Laparoscopy showed a soft, enlarged right uterine horn not communicating with the cervix and containing the pregnancy, and a left uterine horn communicating with the cervix and showing a posterior wall perforation. The procedure was converted to laparotomy, and the right uterine horn and adjacent tube were excised. The patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged after 3 days.
CONCLUSION: Pregnancy in a non-communicating horn is rare and usually presents with serious complications. Any case of failed medical termination of pregnancy after repeated doses of misoprostol should be carefully assessed to exclude the possibility of uterine anomalies (especially in a primigravida), before proceeding with dilatation and evacuation to minimise the risk of complications.
CASE: A 16-week intrauterine fetal death singleton pregnancy was referred to us after failed medical and surgical termination of pregnancy. Ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis and showed minimal blood clots and fluid in the pouch of Douglas. Laparoscopy showed a soft, enlarged right uterine horn not communicating with the cervix and containing the pregnancy, and a left uterine horn communicating with the cervix and showing a posterior wall perforation. The procedure was converted to laparotomy, and the right uterine horn and adjacent tube were excised. The patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged after 3 days.
CONCLUSION: Pregnancy in a non-communicating horn is rare and usually presents with serious complications. Any case of failed medical termination of pregnancy after repeated doses of misoprostol should be carefully assessed to exclude the possibility of uterine anomalies (especially in a primigravida), before proceeding with dilatation and evacuation to minimise the risk of complications.