| Literature DB >> 30018515 |
Tomoya Hasegawa1, Naoaki Kuji1, Fumiaki Notake2, Tetsu Tsukamoto3, Toru Sasaki1, Motohiro Shimizu4, Kazunori Mukaida1, Hiroe Ito1, Keiichi Isaka1, Hirotaka Nishi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this prospective cohort study, we examined the utility of elastography to evaluate the fetus and placenta. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pregnant women in their third trimester of pregnancy, by which time the placenta has formed, were included in this study. A total of 111 women underwent ultrasound examinations, including elastography. Elastographic evaluation was performed using two protocols. First, the placental index (PI) was measured, which quantitatively assesses the hardness of tissue. Second, regions of interest (ROI) were categorized into 3-step scores according to the frequency of the blue area (hardness of placental tissue score [HT score]), which is a qualitative method. After delivery, 40 of the 111 placentas were pathologically examined.Entities:
Keywords: elastography; placenta; small for gestational age; ultrasound
Year: 2018 PMID: 30018515 PMCID: PMC6043885 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2018-0024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Oncol ISSN: 1318-2099 Impact factor: 4.214
Figure 1Representative ultrasound images of hardness of tissue (HT) score (A) The HT score was 1 when the blue area in the ROI was 50% or less. A strain graph, used to assess proper application of compression, is indicated in the lower right (B) The blue and green areas are shown mixed together in relatively equal percentages in the placenta (C) Most of the placenta is indicated in blue. In the left image, the strain ratio is calculated from the region of interest of the fat and placental tissue. In this case, the placental index is 19.83.
Population features between the Normal group and SGA group
| Normal group | SGA group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 101 | 10 | |
| Maternal age (years) | 34.4 (±5.6) | 33.6 (±4.7) | NS |
| Gravidity | 0.9 (±1.2) | 1.3 (±1.3) | NS |
| Parity | 0.5 (±0.9) | 0.6 (±0.7) | NS |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 31.7 (±6.3) | 32.8 (±4.2) | NS |
| EFW (SD) | +0.11 (±0.74) | -2.33 (±0.84) | |
| Placental Index | 8.8 (±10.0) | 44.3 (±29.4) | |
| HT score | 1.56 (±0.68) | 2.70 (±0.67) | |
| Birth weight (SD) | 0.11 (±1.13) | -2.19 (±1.07) | |
| Placenta weight (g) | 562.3 (±119.7) | 366 (±120.0) |
The above values represent the mean (standard deviation).
EFW = estimated fetal weight; HT = score hardness of tissue score; SGA = small for gestational age
Figure 2The correlation between the placental index (PI) and z score for estimated fetal weight at prenatal examination (EFW) . There is a significant correlation between the PI and z score for EFW (correlation coefficient, r = -0.55; p < 0.01).
Figure 3A significant positive correlation was observed between the placental index (PI) and z score of birth weight (correlation coefficient, r = -0.39; p < 0.01).
HT score and pathological findings related to placental ischemia after delivery
| HT score | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 15) | (n = 16) | (n = 9) | |
| Accelerated maturation of villi (+), (n) | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Infarction (+), (n) | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Villous inflammation (+), (n) | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total, n, (%) | 3 (20) | 4 (25) | 6 (67) |
HT scores were evaluated during elastography. The presence and absence of pathological findings of the placenta after delivery are shown.
Figure 4Gross pathological findings of the placenta. A macro-photograph of the placenta after delivery. The neonate had fetal growth restriction, diagnosed during elastography evaluation at week 28 of pregnancy. White placental infarction is observed at the bottom right of the photo.
Figure 5Histopathological findings of the placenta. Objective lens with 4× magnification. A micro-photograph of the same case as that shown in Figure 4. Complete infarction and incomplete infarction with remaining nuclear stainability are observed. The outlines of the villus remain in the upper right area.