Yoshikazu Nagase1, Shinya Matsuzaki2,3, Masayuki Endo1,4, Takeya Hara1, Aiko Okada5, Kazuya Mimura1, Kosuke Hiramatsu1, Aiko Kakigano1,6, Erika Nakatsuka1, Tatsuya Miyake1, Tsuyoshi Takiuchi1, Yutaka Ueda1, Takuji Tomimatsu1, Tadashi Kimura1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. zacky@gyne.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. zacky@gyne.med.osaka-u.ac.jp. 4. Department of Health Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aizenbashi Hospital, Osaka, Japan. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A diagnostic sign on magnetic resonance imaging, suggestive of posterior extrauterine adhesion (PEUA), was identified in patients with placenta previa. However, the clinical features or surgical outcomes of patients with placenta previa and PEUA are unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics of placenta previa with PEUA and determine whether an altered management strategy improved surgical outcomes. METHODS: This single institution retrospective study examined patients with placenta previa who underwent cesarean delivery between 2014 and 2019. In June 2017, we recognized that PEUA was associated with increased intraoperative bleeding; thus, we altered the management of patients with placenta previa and PEUA. To assess the relationship between changes in practice and surgical outcomes, a quasi-experimental method was used to examine the difference-in-difference before (pre group) and after (post group) the changes. Surgical management was modified as follows: (i) minimization of uterine exteriorization and adhesion detachment during cesarean delivery and (ii) use of Nelaton catheters for guiding cervical passage during Bakri balloon insertion. To account for patient characteristics, propensity score matching and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The study cohort (n = 141) comprised of 24 patients with placenta previa and PEUA (PEUA group) and 117 non-PEUA patients (control group). The PEUA patients were further categorized into the pre (n = 12) and post groups (n = 12) based on the changes in surgical management. Total placenta previa and posterior placentas were more likely in the PEUA group than in the control group (66.7% versus 42.7% [P = 0.04] and 95.8% versus 63.2% [P < 0.01], respectively). After propensity score matching (n = 72), intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the PEUA group (n = 24) than in the control group (n = 48) (1515 mL versus 870 mL, P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that PEUA was a significant risk factor for intraoperative bleeding before changes were implemented in practice (t = 2.46, P = 0.02). Intraoperative blood loss in the post group was successfully reduced, as opposed to in the pre group (1180 mL versus 1827 mL, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: PEUA was associated with total placenta previa, posterior placenta, and increased intraoperative bleeding in patients with placenta previa. Our altered management could reduce the intraoperative blood loss.
BACKGROUND: A diagnostic sign on magnetic resonance imaging, suggestive of posterior extrauterine adhesion (PEUA), was identified in patients with placenta previa. However, the clinical features or surgical outcomes of patients with placenta previa and PEUA are unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics of placenta previa with PEUA and determine whether an altered management strategy improved surgical outcomes. METHODS: This single institution retrospective study examined patients with placenta previa who underwent cesarean delivery between 2014 and 2019. In June 2017, we recognized that PEUA was associated with increased intraoperative bleeding; thus, we altered the management of patients with placenta previa and PEUA. To assess the relationship between changes in practice and surgical outcomes, a quasi-experimental method was used to examine the difference-in-difference before (pre group) and after (post group) the changes. Surgical management was modified as follows: (i) minimization of uterine exteriorization and adhesion detachment during cesarean delivery and (ii) use of Nelaton catheters for guiding cervical passage during Bakri balloon insertion. To account for patient characteristics, propensity score matching and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The study cohort (n = 141) comprised of 24 patients with placenta previa and PEUA (PEUA group) and 117 non-PEUApatients (control group). The PEUApatients were further categorized into the pre (n = 12) and post groups (n = 12) based on the changes in surgical management. Total placenta previa and posterior placentas were more likely in the PEUA group than in the control group (66.7% versus 42.7% [P = 0.04] and 95.8% versus 63.2% [P < 0.01], respectively). After propensity score matching (n = 72), intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the PEUA group (n = 24) than in the control group (n = 48) (1515 mL versus 870 mL, P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that PEUA was a significant risk factor for intraoperative bleeding before changes were implemented in practice (t = 2.46, P = 0.02). Intraoperative blood loss in the post group was successfully reduced, as opposed to in the pre group (1180 mL versus 1827 mL, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:PEUA was associated with total placenta previa, posterior placenta, and increased intraoperative bleeding in patients with placenta previa. Our altered management could reduce the intraoperative blood loss.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adhesion; Bakri balloon; Endometriosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Placenta previa
Authors: Martha W F Rac; Jodi S Dashe; C Edward Wells; Elysia Moschos; Donald D McIntire; Diane M Twickler Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sally L Collins; Bahrin Alemdar; Heleen J van Beekhuizen; Charline Bertholdt; Thorsten Braun; Pavel Calda; Pierre Delorme; Johannes J Duvekot; Lene Gronbeck; Gilles Kayem; Jens Langhoff-Roos; Louis Marcellin; Pasquale Martinelli; Olivier Morel; Mina Mhallem; Maddalena Morlando; Lone N Noergaard; Andreas Nonnenmacher; Petra Pateisky; Philippe Petit; Marcus J Rijken; Mariola Ropacka-Lesiak; Dietmar Schlembach; Loïc Sentilhes; Vedran Stefanovic; Gita Strindfors; Boris Tutschek; Siri Vangen; Alexander Weichert; Katharina Weizsäcker; Frederic Chantraine Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: G Cali; F Forlani; F Foti; G Minneci; L Manzoli; M E Flacco; D Buca; M Liberati; G Scambia; F D'Antonio Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Ernesto Licon; Shinya Matsuzaki; Karen N Opara; Adrian J Y Ng; Nicole M Bender; Brendan H Grubbs; Richard H Lee; Joseph G Ouzounian; Huyen Q Pham; Laurie L Brunette; Annie A Yessaian; Marcia A Ciccone; Laila I Muderspach; Lynda D Roman; Elizabeth B Sasso; Koji Matsuo Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 2.435