A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Challenges in the Routine Praxis Diagnosis of Hydatidiform Mole: a Tertiary Health Center Experience. | LitMetric

Introduction: Hydatidiform moles (HM), presenting as complete (CHM) and partial (PHM) form, are rare pregnancy disorder. Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, ultrasound imaging findings and pathological examination of products of conception. Protein p57, encoded by CKDN1C gene, is paternally imprinted and maternally expressed gene and provides quick insight in genetic basis of HM and allows distinction of CHM from all other conceptions. compare the preevacuational and pathohistological diagnosis with outcome of p57 immunostaining.

Material And Methods: All cases of HM diagnosed between January 2011 and December 2015 were included in this research. Maternal age, gestational age and input diagnosis data were recored. p57 immunostaining was performed in order to evaluate the diagnosis based on tissue slides examination.

Results: There were 198 cases of histologically confirmed HM, 185 PHM, 12 CHM and one case of undefined HM. Mean maternal age in the CHM group was 24,7 and in the PHM group 26,9 years, with no significant differences among these two groups (p=0,27). For CHM mean gestational age was estimated at eight and for PHM 9,2 gestational weeks. Pregnant woman older than 40 years present significant earlier compared with younger woman (p<0,01), and those younger than 20 years tend to present at the beginning of the second trimester more often than older women (p<0,05). In the CHM group, 9 (75%) input diagnoses were mola in obs, and 3 (25%) of them were signed as abortion, unlike the PHM where 126 (67%) were qualified as abortion, 35 (19%) as blighted ovum, and 26 (14%) were suggestive for molar pregnancy. p57 immunostaining results confirmed all pathohistological diagnosis of CHM whereas 8% of PHM demonstrated divergent p57 expression.

Conclusion: PHM, compared with CHM, represent a greater diagnostic challenge for both gynecologist and pathologist even when presenting in more advanced pregnancies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5585792PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2017.71.256-260DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnosis based
8
maternal age
8
gestational age
8
diagnosis
5
chm
5
challenges routine
4
routine praxis
4
praxis diagnosis
4
diagnosis hydatidiform
4
hydatidiform mole
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!