4.5 Article

Color-dye injection of monochorionic placentas and correlation with pregnancy complications

期刊

PLACENTA
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 1095-1099

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.placenta.2015.07.129

关键词

Monochorionic placenta; Placenta anastomoses; TTTS; sIUGR; Amniotic fluid discordance; TAPS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Vascular anastomoses in monochorionic (MC) twin placenta can be easily identified with color-dye injection. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between different type of anastomoses and twin pregnancy complications. Methods: From January 2011 to October 2014, MC placentas were analyzed with color-dye injection and five group of pregnancies were identified: those that were not complicated (NC), those complicated with selective intrauterine growth restriction (sIUGR), twin twin transfusion syndrome (TITS), or twin anemia-polycitemia sequence (TAPS) and those with amniotic fluid discordance (AFD) between twins. Cases of TITS treated with endoscopic laser coagulation of placenta anastomoses or cases with in utero death of one twin were excluded. Results: A total of 118 MC placentas were observed, 58 (49%) NC, 35 (30%) sIUGR, 10 (8%) TITS, 13 (11%) AFD and 2 (2%) TAPS. The median number of anastomoses was 7 (range 1-15), 8 (2-18), 4(2-11), 7 (2-13) and 1 (1-1), respectively. At least one artero-venous anastomoses was found in the placenta observed, while the prevalence of artero-arterial anastomoses was 95% for NC, 91% for sIUGR, 60% for TITS, and 77% for AFD; no TAPS placenta had this type of anastomoses. The diameter of arteroarterial anastomoses was greater in the AFD group (33 mm), compared to the NC, sIUGR and TITS groups (23, 2.5 and 1.4 respectively, p 0.04). Discussion: In this large serie of MC placenta analyzed with color-dye injection, a specific distribution of anastomoses emerged for twins with amniotic fluid discordance, which points to a need for intensive surveillance. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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