Click on the article title to read more.

INTRODUCTION: These Guidelines aim to describe appropriate assessment of fetal biometry and diagnosis of fetal growth disorders. These disorders consist mainly of fetal growth restriction (FGR), also referred to as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and often associated with small‐for‐gestational age (SGA), and large‐for‐gestational age (LGA), which may lead to fetal macrosomia; both have been associated with a variety of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Screening for, and adequate management of, fetal growth abnormalities are essential components of antenatal care, and fetal ultrasound plays a key role in assessment of these conditions.The fetal biometric parameters measured most commonly are biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur diaphysis length (FL). These biometric measurements can be used to estimate fetal weight (EFW) using various different formulae¹. It is important to differentiate between the concept of fetal size at a given timepoint and fetal growth, the latter being a dynamic process, the assessment of which requires at least two ultrasound scans separated in time. Maternal history and symptoms, amniotic fluid assessment and Doppler velocimetry can provide additional information that may be used to identify fetuses at risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.Accurate estimation of gestational age is a prerequisite for determining whether fetal size is appropriate‐for‐gestational age (AGA). Except for pregnancies arising from assisted reproductive technology, the date of conception cannot be determined precisely. Clinically, most pregnancies are dated by the last menstrual period, though this may sometimes be uncertain or unreliable. Therefore, dating pregnancies by early ultrasound examination at 8–14 weeks, based on measurement of the fetal crown–rump length (CRL), appears to be the most reliable method to establish gestational age. Once the CRL exceeds 84 mm, HC should be used for pregnancy dating^2–4. HC, with or without FL, can be used for estimation of gestational age from the mid‐trimester if a first‐trimester scan is not available and the menstrual history is unreliable. When the expected delivery date has been established by an accurate early scan, subsequent scans should not be used to recalculate the gestational age¹. Serial scans can be used to determine if interval growth has been normal.In these Guidelines, we assume that the gestational age is known and has been determined as described above, the pregnancy is singleton and the fetal anatomy is normal. Details of the grades of recommendation used in these Guidelines are given in Appendix 1. Reporting of levels of evidence is not applicable to these Guidelines.

Click on the article title to read more.

Background: Virtual reality is increasingly being utilized by clinicians to facilitate analgesia and anxiolysis within an inpatient setting. There is however, a lack of a clinically relevant review to guide its use for this purpose. Objective: To systematically review the current evidence for the efficacy of virtual reality as an analgesic in the management of acute pain and anxiolysis in an inpatient setting. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted up to and including January 2019 on PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Search terms included virtual reality, vr, and pain. Primary articles with a focus on acute pain in the clinical setting were considered for the review. Primary outcome measures included degree of analgesia afforded by virtual reality therapy, degree of anxiolysis afforded by virtual reality therapy, effect of virtual reality on physiological parameters, side effects precipitated by virtual reality, virtual reality content type, and type of equipment utilized. Results: Eighteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this systematic review; 67% (12/18) of studies demonstrated significant reductions in pain with the utilization of virtual reality; 44% (8/18) of studies assessed the effects of virtual reality on procedural anxiety, with 50% (4/8) of these demonstrating significant reductions; 28% (5/18) of studies screened for side effects with incidence rates of 0.5% to 8%; 39% (7/18) of studies evaluated the effects of virtual reality on autonomic arousal as a biomarker of pain, with 29% (2/7) demonstrating significant changes; 100% (18/18) of studies utilized a head mounted display to deliver virtual reality therapy, with 50% being in active form (participants interacting with the environment) and 50% being in passive form (participants observing the content only). Conclusions: Available evidence suggests that virtual reality therapy can be applied to facilitate analgesia for acute pain in a variety of inpatient settings. Its effects, however, are likely to vary by patient population and indication. This highlights the need for individualized pilot testing of virtual reality therapy’s effects for each specific clinical use case rather than generalizing its use for the broad indication of facilitating analgesia. In addition, virtual reality therapy has the added potential of concurrently providing procedural anxiolysis, thereby improving patient experience and cooperation, while being associated with a low incidence of side effects (nausea, vomiting, eye strain, and dizziness). Furthermore, findings indicated a head mounted display should be utilized to deliver virtual reality therapy in a clinical setting with a slight preference for active over passive virtual reality for analgesia. There, however, appears to be insufficient evidence to substantiate the effect of virtual reality on autonomic arousal, and this should be considered at best to be for investigational uses, at present.