| Literature DB >> 31455286 |
Saad El Gelany1, Mohammed H Mosbeh1, Emad M Ibrahim1, Mo'men Mohammed1, Eissa M Khalifa1, Ahmed K Abdelhakium1, Ayman M Yousef1, Heba Hassan1, Khaled Goma1, Ahmed Abd Alghany1, Hashem Fares Mohammed1, Ahmed M Azmy1, Wegdan A Ali2, Ahmed R Abdelraheim3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders have become a significant life-threatening issue due to its increased incidence, morbidity and mortality. Several studies have tried to identify the risk factors for PAS disorders. The ideal management for PAS disorders is a matter of debate. The study objectives were to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of PAS disorders and to compare different management strategies at a tertiary referral hospital, Minia, Egypt.Entities:
Keywords: Cervix; Placenta accreta spectrum; Tamponade
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31455286 PMCID: PMC6712589 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2466-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Baseline characteristics of studied group
| Variable | Descriptive | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD (range) | 32.4 ± 4.2 (23–39) | |
| Parity | 1–2 | 42 (41.2%) |
| 3–4 | 46 (45.1%) | |
| ≥ 5 | 14 (13.7%) | |
| Previous CS | 1 | 18 (17.6%) |
| 2 | 30 (29.4%) | |
| 3 | 36 (35.3%) | |
| 4 | 18 (17.6%) | |
| History of placenta previa | Yes | 34 (33.3%) |
| No | 68 (66.7%) | |
SD standard deviation, CS cesarean section
Comparisons among the three groups regarding baseline characteristics
| Variable | Group A | Group B | Group C | P. V. (Sig.) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD (range) | 32.9 ± 4.1 | 31.8 ± 4.2 | 31.7 ± 4.5 | 0.429NS | |
| Parity | 1–2 | 2 (5.3%) | 26 (54.2%) | 14 (87.5%) | < 0.001** |
| 3–4 | 22 (57.9%) | 22 (45.8%) | 2 (12.5%) | ||
| ≥ 5 | 14 (36.8%) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Previous CS | 1 | 0 | 10 (20.8%) | 8 (50%) | < 0.001** |
| 2 | 4 (10.5%) | 18 (37.5%) | 8 (50%) | ||
| 3 | 18 (47.4%) | 18 (37.5%) | 0 | ||
| 4 | 16 (42.1%) | 2 (4.2%) | 0 | ||
| History of placenta previa | Yes | 13 (34.2%) | 15 (31.2%) | 6 (37.5%) | 0.035* |
| No | 25 (65.8%) | 33 (68.8%) | 10 (62.5%) | ||
NS Not significant, * = Significant (p < 0.05),** = highly significant (p < 0.01), SD standard deviation, CS cesarean section
Comparisons among the three groups regarding clinical, laboratory findings and postoperative morbidities
| Variable | Groups | P. V. (Sig.) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group (A) | Group (B) | Group (C) | ||||
| Pre op. Hb (g/dl) | 11.3 ± 0.3 | 11.4 ± 0.7 | 11.4 ± 0.4 | 0.665NS | ||
| Post op. Hb (g/dl) | 9.5 ± 0.4 | 9.7 ± 0.5 | 10.7 ± 0.5 |
| ||
| Decrease in Hb (%) | 15.7 ± 3.8 | 14.9 ± 4.1 | 8.6 ± 2.7 |
| ||
| Estimated blood loss (L) | 2.84a ± 1.12 | 2.58 | 2.12 |
| ||
| Blood transfusion (units) | 3.8 | 3.7 | 2.9 |
| ||
| Mean duration of hospital stay (days) | 6.8 | 5.1 | 8.4 |
| ||
| Hospital stay (day) | 2 | 2 (5.3%) | 4 (8.3%) | 0 |
| |
| 3–5 | 4 (10.5%) | 30 (62.5%) | 0 | |||
| 6–7 | 14 (36.8%) | 6 (12.5%) | 8 (50%) | |||
| > 7 | 18 (47.4%) | 8 (16.7%) | 8 (50%) | |||
| CCComplications | No | 10 (26.3%) | 32 (66.7%) | 9 (56.25%) |
| |
| Yes | Bladder injury | 15 (39.5%) | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (6.25%) | ||
| 1ry PPH | 0 | 6 (12.5%)d | 0 | |||
| 2ndry PPH | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | |||
| ICU admission | 8 (21.1%) | 4 (8.3%) | 1 (6.25%) | |||
| Coagulopathy | 4 (10.5%) | 2 (4.2%) | 0 | |||
| Infection | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | |||
| Delayed hysterectomy | 0 | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | |||
| Re-exploration | 1 (2.6%) | 0 | 0 | |||
| Mortality | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
NS Not significant, * = Significant (p < 0.05), ** = highly significant (p < 0.01), HB Haemoglobin, PPH Postpartum haemorrhage, ICU Intensive care unit, a, b, c,Means with different superscript in the same raw are significantly different
din group B, six cases developed primary PPH after the primary procedure (cervical tamponade), four of them had hysterectomy and the remaining 2 cases were managed conservatively by insertion of intrauterine Bakri balloon