10 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 1.29-2.37) and 4.13 (IQR, 3.11-7.39) (p < 0.001).\n\nInattentional blindness was evident in both groups. Although more accurate, the AR group was less likely to identify significant unexpected findings clearly within view. Advanced navigational displays may increase precision, but strategies to mitigate attentional costs need further investigation to allow safe implementation.”
“Objective: To determine whether the routine use of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in “good prognosis” women improves in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome.\n\nDesign:

Randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study.\n\nSetting: Private infertility clinic.\n\nPatient(s): Infertile women predicted to have a good prognosis as defined by: age < 39 www.selleckchem.com/products/EX-527.html years, normal ovarian reserve, body mass index < 30 kg/m(2), presence of ejaculated sperm, normal uterus, <= 2 previous failed IVF cycles.\n\nIntervention(s): Patients were randomized to the PGS group or the control group on day 3 after oocyte retrieval; 23 women underwent blastomere biopsy on day 3 after fertilization (PGS group), and 24 women underwent routine IVF (control group). All embryos were transferred on day 5 or 6 after fertilization.\n\nMain Outcome Measure(s): Pregnancy, implantation, multiple gestation, and live birth rates.\n\nResult(s): No statistically

significant differences were found between the PGS and control groups with respect to clinical pregnancy rate Selleck GANT61 (52.4% versus 72.7%). However, the embryo implantation rate was statistically significantly lower for the PGS group (34.7% versus 62.3%) as were the live birth rate (28.6% versus 68.2%) and the multiple birth rate (9.1% versus 46.7%).\n\nConclusion(s): In a “good prognosis” population of women, PGS does not appear to improve pregnancy, implantation, or live birth rates. (Fertil Steril (R)

2009;91:1731-8. (C)2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)”
“Objective: find more To assess changes in the levator plate angle (LPA), anteroposterior length of the levator hiatus (H-line), and pelvic floor descent (M-line) after vaginal hysterectomy and prolapse repair using the Gynecare Prolift Total Pelvic Floor Repair System. Methods: Before and after the intervention, 20 women with pelvic floor prolapse underwent dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in supine position during the Valsalva maneuver to measure the LPA, H-line, and M-line. Paired t tests were performed and Pearson correlation coefficients calculated from values obtained using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Results: After the intervention the LPA was smaller (46.92 degrees vs 55.39 degrees, P<0.05), the H-line was shorter (53.70 cm vs 60.46 cm, P<0.05), and the M-line was shorter (19.58 cm vs 25.27 cm, P<0.05).