4.2 Article

Study of the utility and problems of common iliac artery balloon occlusion for placenta previa with accreta

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.13550

关键词

balloon occlusion; hysterectomy; iliac artery; placenta previa; risk factors

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26462499] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsWe investigated whether common iliac artery balloon occlusion (CIABO) was effective for decreasing blood loss during cesarean hysterectomy (CH) in patients with placenta previa with accreta and was safe for mothers and fetuses. MethodsOf the 67 patients who underwent CH for placenta previa with accreta at our facility from 1985 to 2014, 57 patients were eligible for the study. The amount of intraoperative bleeding during CH was compared between three groups: surgery without blood flow occlusion (13 patients), internal iliac artery ligation (15 patients) and CIABO (29 patients). Additionally, multivariate analysis was performed to assess risk factors for massive bleeding during CH. ResultsThe mean blood loss in the CIABO group (20271638mL) was significantly lower than in the other two groups (3787 +/- 2936mL in the no occlusion, 4175 +/- 1921mL in the internal iliac artery ligation group; P<0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that spontaneous placental detachment during surgery (odds ratio [OR] 49.174, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.98-1763.67), a history of 2 cesarean sections (OR 9.226, 95% CI 1.07-231.15) and no use of CIABO (OR 26.403, 95% CI 3.20-645.17) were significantly related to massive bleeding during surgery. There was no case of necrosis resulting from ischemia. The mean radiation dose during balloon placement never exceeded the threshold value for fetal exposure. ConclusionBleeding during CH for placenta previa with accreta can be decreased by CIABO. This study also confirmed the safety of CIABO in regard to maternal lower limb ischemia and fetal radiation exposure during balloon placement.

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

4.2
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