4.6 Review

Four major patterns of placental injury: a stepwise guide for understanding and implementing the 2016 Amsterdam consensus

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1074-1092

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41379-021-00747-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review aims to clarify some issues in the Amsterdam classification system through a stepwise approach. Key steps for correctly identifying and communicating each pattern of injury include understanding the underlying pathophysiology and known clinical associations, incorporating important gross findings, learning to recognize underlying architectural alterations, using higher magnification to assess severity and duration, and adopting a template for standardized placental reports.
The Amsterdam classification system defines four major patterns of placental injury, maternal vascular malperfusion, fetal vascular malperfusion, acute chorioamnionitis, and villitis of unknown etiology, and lists the histologic findings that characterize each. However, there continues to be uncertainty regarding specific definitions, histologic mimics, grading and staging, and what combination of findings is required to diagnose each pattern of injury in a reproducible fashion. The purpose of this review is to clarify some of these issues by suggesting a stepwise approach to more fully realize the potential of this new classification system. In our view, the critical steps for correctly identifying and communicating each pattern of injury are (1) familiarity with the underlying pathophysiology and known clinical associations, (2) incorporation of important gross findings, (3) learning to recognize underlying architectural alterations and defining features at low power, (4) using higher magnification to narrow the differential diagnosis and assess severity (grading) and duration (staging), and (5) adopting a template for generating standardized placental reports that succinctly provide useful information for patient care and research applications.

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