Search

Background: During the second stage of labor, in case of a need for a fetal extraction at midcavity, the choice of attempting the procedure between operative vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery is difficult. Moreover, guidelines on this subject are not clear., Objective: This study aimed to identify antenatal and intrapartum parameters associated with a failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery and its association with maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes., Study Design: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study conducted at a tertiary maternity hospital in France from January 2010 to December 2020. Women with singleton pregnancies under epidural analgesia with nonanomalous cephalic presenting fetuses and gestational ages at ≥37 weeks of gestation, who were submitted to midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery, were included. Following the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists definition, midcavity was defined as the presenting part of the fetus (ie, the fetal head) found at stations 0 and +1. For research purposes, all patients were submitted to transperineal ultrasound to evaluate the head-to-perineum distance, however, this measurement did not affect the decision to perform a midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery. The primary outcome of the study was failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery leading to cesarean delivery or the use of a different instrument to achieve vaginal delivery., Results: Overall, 951 cases of midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery were included in this study. Failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery occurred in 242 patients (25.4%). Factors independently associated with failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery included maternal height (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P=.002), duration of the active phase of the first stage of labor (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.17; P<.001), nonocciput anterior fetal head position (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.04; P=.02), z score of the head-to-perineum distance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.43; P=.01), and birthweight of >4000 g (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.26; P=.003). Women submitted to a failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery were more likely to have a major postpartum hemorrhage (7.1% vs 2.0%; P<.001), whereas neonates were more likely to have an umbilical artery pH of <7.1 (30.5% vs 19.8%; P=.001), be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (9.6% vs 4.7%; P=.005), and have a severe caput succedaneum (14.9% vs 0.7%; P<.001). Subgroup analysis on all patients with a fetal head station of 0 found that the head-to-perineum distance was the only independent variable associated with failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.12; P<.001). The area under the receiving operating characteristic curve of the head-to-perineum distance in this subgroup population was 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.73; P<.001), and the optimal cutoff point of the head-to-perineum distance measurement discriminating between failed and successful midcavity vacuum-assisted deliveries was 55 mm. It was associated with a 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95) sensitivity, 0.19 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.25) specificity, 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.42) positive predictive value, and 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.90) negative predictive value., Conclusion: Study data showed that a high fetal head station, measured using the head-to-perineum distance, and a nonocciput anterior position of the fetal head are independently associated with failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery. The result supported the systematic assessment of the sonographic head station and position before performing a midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A significant increase in breast cancer is expected in the coming decades among people with disabilities. However, their participation rate in screening programs is significantly lower than women without disabilities. Our objective was therefore to analyse the barriers to breast cancer screening in people with disabilities based on a recent review of the international literature. The articles analysed were retrieved from the PUBMED database from 2014 to 2020 using the following keywords "breast cancer", "screening" and "disability". A total of 37 studies were included, including 30 original articles and 7 meta-analyses. The main barriers to performing breast cancer screening for women with disabilities were environmental factors such as lack of adapted transportation means or difficult access to medical facilities and mammography. To a lesser extent, the unsupportive views of family caregivers and health care staff about screening were also barriers to screening acceptance by people with disabilities. In general, breast cancer screening is a useful public health measure that reduces the burden of treatment and breast cancer-related mortality. Screening is useful for women over 50 years of age who have a sufficiently long-life expectancy, generally estimated at more than 10 years. Educational measures are needed to reduce the barriers to screening for PH who meet these criteria, their caregivers, and their providers so that they can actively participate in health care, rather than being marginalized because of their disability., (Copyright © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

In addition to the TRANSFORMS, FREEDOMS, INFORMS studies, very few publications have identified new cases of skin cancer in patients treated with fingolimod. Here, we present the case of a 52-year-old Caucasian patient with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis for 19 years, with a phototype II with blue eyes, light brown hair, no personal or family history of melanoma and a low number of naevi (<10). She did not experience intense sun exposure in childhood as well as severe sunburn and did not practise sessions in ultraviolet cabins. This case is distinguished from other published cases, usually superficial spreading malignant melanoma by its unclassifiable histological character. The occurrence of skin cancers in patients with multiple sclerosis remains exceptional, but new cases have recently emerged requiring the strengthening of dermatological follow-up of such patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Few studies have described the epidemiology of human papillomavirus (HPV) in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). The aim of this study was to genotype HPV on formalin fixed paraffin-embedded tissues in VIN lesions., Methods: A 5-year retrospective study was conducted by including all patients attending the teaching hospital of Nice with a diagnosis of VIN between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2014. For all patients, HPV genotyping was performed with the PapilloCheck ® microarray kit, routinely used on cervical cytology samples, and optimized for formaldehyde fixed paraffin-embedded tissues in VIN., Results: Forty patients were included in the study: 39 patients had usual VIN and one presented with differentiated VIN. Among the 39 patients with usual VIN, the prevalence of HPV was 90% (35/39). Thirty-two patients had high grade VIN (82%) and seven low grade VIN (18%). In high grade VIN, the most represented HPV types were: HPV 16 (21/32 66%), HPV 56 (3/32 9%) and HPV 33 (2/32 6%). In low grade VIN, the most represented HPV types were: HPV 16 (4/7 57%) and HPV 6 (3/7 43%). Interestingly, 5/39 (13%) of patients diagnosed with usual VIN also had co-existing lichen sclerosus., Conclusions: We have optimized a HPV genotyping technique, routinely used on cervical cytology samples, and on paraffin fixed embedded tissue showing VIN. Moreover, we have identified five patients with lichen sclerosus co-existing with usual VIN. This association has rarely been reported and proves that these two entities can coexist.