4.6 Review

Congenital Syphilis Presenting with Brain Abnormalities at Neuroscan: A Case Report and a Brief Literature Review

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10081497

关键词

congenital syphilis; primary syphilis; ultrasound; neurosonography; high-risk pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article describes a case of vertical transmission in a 35-year-old pregnant woman with an unknown medical history of primary syphilis. The fetus showed signs of growth restriction and eventual death. Placental examination revealed signs of chorioamnionitis and inflammation. The importance of multidisciplinary management for syphilis patients is emphasized.
A case of vertical transmission in a 35-year-old pregnant woman, gravida 4, para 2 with an unknown medical history of carrying primary syphilis is described. A routine 3rd trimester scan was performed at 30 + 5 weeks of pregnancy, which revealed fetal growth restriction (FGR) associated with absent fetal movement, a pathologic neuroscan characterized by cortical calcifications and ominous Doppler waveform analysis of the umbilical artery and ductus venosus. Computerized electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) showed a Class III tracing, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines. An emergency C-section was performed and a female newborn weighing 1470 g was delivered. The Apgar scores were 5 and 8 at the first and fifth min, respectively. Besides the prompted obstetrical and neonatal interventions, the neonate died after 7 days. A histologic examination of the placenta revealed a chorioamnionitis at stage 1/2 and grade 2/3. The parenchyma showed diffuse delayed villous maturation, focal infarcts, and intraparenchymal hemorrhages. The decidua presented with chronic deciduitis with plasma cells. The parents declined the autopsy. Congenital syphilis is an emerging worldwide phenomenon and the multidisciplinary management of the mother and the fetus should be mandatory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据