OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of transabdominal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. METHODS: A historical cohort study was undertaken at 3 institutions identifying women at risk for placenta accreta who had undergone both sonography and MRI prenatally. Sonographic and MRI findings were compared with the final diagnosis as determined at delivery and by pathologic examination. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients who had both sonography and MRI prenatally to evaluate for placenta accreta were identified. Of these, 15 had confirmation of placenta accreta at delivery. Sonography correctly identified the presence of placenta accreta in 14 of 15 patients (93% sensitivity; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80%-100%) and the absence of placenta accreta in 12 of 17 patients (71% specificity; 95% CI, 49%-93%). Magnetic resonance imaging correctly identified the presence of placenta accreta in 12 of 15 patients (80% sensitivity; 95% CI, 60%-100%) and the absence of placenta accreta in 11 of 17 patients (65% specificity; 95% CI, 42%-88%). In 7 of 32 cases, sonography and MRI had discordant diagnoses: sonography was correct in 5 cases, and MRI was correct in 2. There was no statistical difference in sensitivity (P = .25) or specificity (P = .5) between sonography and MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Both sonography and MRI have fairly good sensitivity for prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta; however, specificity does not appear to be as good as reported in other studies. In the case of inconclusive findings with one imaging modality, the other modality may be useful for clarifying the diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of transabdominal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. METHODS: A historical cohort study was undertaken at 3 institutions identifying women at risk for placenta accreta who had undergone both sonography and MRI prenatally. Sonographic and MRI findings were compared with the final diagnosis as determined at delivery and by pathologic examination. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients who had both sonography and MRI prenatally to evaluate for placenta accreta were identified. Of these, 15 had confirmation of placenta accreta at delivery. Sonography correctly identified the presence of placenta accreta in 14 of 15 patients (93% sensitivity; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80%-100%) and the absence of placenta accreta in 12 of 17 patients (71% specificity; 95% CI, 49%-93%). Magnetic resonance imaging correctly identified the presence of placenta accreta in 12 of 15 patients (80% sensitivity; 95% CI, 60%-100%) and the absence of placenta accreta in 11 of 17 patients (65% specificity; 95% CI, 42%-88%). In 7 of 32 cases, sonography and MRI had discordant diagnoses: sonography was correct in 5 cases, and MRI was correct in 2. There was no statistical difference in sensitivity (P = .25) or specificity (P = .5) between sonography and MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Both sonography and MRI have fairly good sensitivity for prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta; however, specificity does not appear to be as good as reported in other studies. In the case of inconclusive findings with one imaging modality, the other modality may be useful for clarifying the diagnosis.
Authors: Emanuel Kanal; James P Borgstede; A James Barkovich; Charlotte Bell; William G Bradley; Shawn Etheridge; Joel P Felmlee; Jerry W Froelich; Jeffrey Hayden; Ellisa M Kaminski; James W Lester; Elizabeth A Scoumis; Loren A Zaremba; Marie D Zinninger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Emanuel Kanal; A James Barkovich; Charlotte Bell; James P Borgstede; William G Bradley; Jerry W Froelich; Tobias Gilk; J Rod Gimbel; John Gosbee; Ellisa Kuhni-Kaminski; James W Lester; John Nyenhuis; Yoav Parag; Daniel J Schaefer; Elizabeth A Sebek-Scoumis; Jeffrey Weinreb; Loren A Zaremba; Pamela Wilcox; Leonard Lucey; Nancy Sass Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christine H Comstock; Joseph J Love; Richard A Bronsteen; Wesley Lee; Ivana M Vettraino; Raywin R Huang; Robert P Lorenz Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Gabriele Masselli; Lorenzo Derchi; Josephine McHugo; Andrea Rockall; Peter Vock; Michael Weston; John Spencer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Valeria Romeo; Francesco Verde; Laura Sarno; Sonia Migliorini; Mario Petretta; Pier Paolo Mainenti; Maria D'Armiento; Maurizio Guida; Arturo Brunetti; Simone Maurea Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.469