4.6 Article

Accuracy of ultrasound in antenatal diagnosis of placental attachment disorders

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 302-307

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/uog.14893

关键词

placenta accreta; placental attachment disorders; placenta previa; ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of placenta accreta and its variants, and to assess the impact of prenatal diagnosis in our population. Methods A total of 314 women with placenta previa were enrolled prospectively and underwent transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound examinations. An ultrasound diagnosis (grayscale and color/power Doppler) of placental attachment disorder (PAD) was based on the detection of at least two of the following ('two-criteria system'): loss/irregularity of the retroplacental clear zone, thinning/interruption of the uterine serosa-bladder wall interface, turbulent placental lacunae with high velocity flow, myometrial thickness <1 mm, increased vascularity of the uterine serosa-bladder wall interface, loss of vascular arch parallel to the basal plate and/or irregular intraplacental vascularization. Definitive diagnosis was made at delivery by Cesarean section. Maternal outcome in cases diagnosed antenatally was compared with that in cases diagnosed at delivery. Results There were 37/314 cases of PAD (29 anterior and eight posterior). The two-criteria system identified 30 cases of placenta accreta, providing a sensitivity of 81.1% and specificity of 98.9%. When anterior and posterior placentae were considered separately, the detection rates of PADwere 89.7 and 50.0%, respectively. Maternal outcome was better in women with prenatal diagnosis of PAD, as seen by less blood loss and shorter hospitalization. Conclusions Our data confirmed that gray-scale and color Doppler ultrasound have good performance in the diagnosis of PAD and that prenatal diagnosis improves maternal outcome. Copyright (C) 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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