4.1 Article

Evaluation of Sonographic Diagnostic Criteria for Placenta Accreta

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ULTRASOUND
Volume 36, Issue 9, Pages 551-559

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20524

Keywords

placenta accreta; diagnosis; ultrasonography; obstetrics; color Doppler

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To compare the diagnostic value of reported sonographic criteria for placenta accreta and to develop a composite score system for antenatal evaluation. Method. Sixty-six women at risk for placenta accreta were examined for 9 cases of placenta accreta that were confirmed at delivery. The performance of previously reported gray-scale and Doppler sonographic criteria for the diagnosis of placenta accreta was analyzed individually. A composite score system was developed by combining selected sensitive or specific sonographic criteria, and its performance was evaluated. Results. The criteria of obliteration of retroplacental clear space, a myometrial thickness of <1 mm, presence of vessels bridging placenta and uterine margin, disruption of the placental-uterine wall interface, and vessels crossing the sites of interface disruption showed a statistically significant association with placenta accreta. The disruption of the placental-uterine wall interface and the presence of vessels crossing these sites were the only 2 individual criteria that could distinguish placenta accreta from non-accreta, which could also be achieved by our composite score system using a cutoff value of 40, with a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 98%. Conclusion. The diagnostic performance of the sonographic diagnostic criteria used in the diagnosis of placenta accreta varies, and a composite score system improves the overall accuracy. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 36:551-559, 2008; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20524

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available