Opportunities for, and barriers to, uterus‐preserving surgical techniques for placenta accreta spectrum

Author:

Paping Alexander1ORCID,Bluth Anja2ORCID,Al Naimi Ammar34ORCID,Mhallem Mina5ORCID,Kolak Magdalena6ORCID,Jaworowski Andrzej6ORCID,Huras Hubert6ORCID,Morlando Maddalena78ORCID,Daskalakis George9ORCID,Pinto Pedro Viana10ORCID,Sentilhes Loïc11ORCID,van Beekhuizen Heleen J.12ORCID,Stefanovic Vedran13ORCID,Fox Karin A.14ORCID,Morel Olivier15ORCID,Bertholdt Charline15ORCID,Braun Thorsten1ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt‐Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany

2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden Dresden Germany

3. Division of Obstetrics and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospital Frankfurt Goethe‐University Frankfurt am Main Germany

4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Buerger Hospital Frankfurt Germany

5. Department of Obstetrics Cliniques Universitaires Saint‐Luc Brussels Belgium

6. Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology Jagiellonian University, Medical College Krakow Poland

7. Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” Naples Italy

8. Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry University of Naples Federico II Naples Italy

9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandra Hospital, Medical School National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece

10. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de São João, Departamento de Ginecologia Porto Portugal

11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Bordeaux University Hospital Bordeaux France

12. Department of Gynecological Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Center Rotterdam The Netherlands

13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetomaternal Medical Center Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland

14. Division of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine, Department of OB‐GYN, Baylor College of Medicine Houston Texas USA

15. Université de Lorraine, CHRU‐NANCY, Pôle de la Femme, and Université de Lorraine, Inserm, IADI Nancy France

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionPlacenta accreta spectrum (PAS) can lead to major peripartum morbidity. Appropriate management approaches depend on the clinical severity, each individual's preference, and the treating team's expertise. Peripartum hysterectomy is the most frequently used treatment option. However, it can impact psychological well‐being and fertility. We investigated whether conservative treatment with focal resection or leaving the placenta in situ is associated with comparable or lower maternal morbidity than hysterectomy in centers of excellence within the International Society for placenta accreta spectrum (IS‐PAS). Furthermore, a survey was conducted to explore potential barriers to conservative management in antenatal counseling and intraoperative decision‐making.Material and MethodsConfirmed PAS cases in the prospective IS‐PAS database from 22 registered centers between January 2020 and June 2022 were included in the analysis. A separate online survey with 21 questions was answered by the IS‐PAS center experts about indications, diagnostic criteria, patient counseling, surgical practice, changes from the preoperative treatment plan, and why conservative management may not be offered.ResultsA total of 234 cases were included in the analysis: 186 women received hysterectomy and 38 women were treated by focal resection, and 10 by leaving the placenta in situ. Blood loss was lower in the focal resection group and in the placenta in situ group compared to the hysterectomy group (p = 0.04). 46.4% of the women initially planned for focal resection, and 35.7% of those initially planned for leaving the placenta in situ were ultimately treated by hysterectomy. Our survey showed that the IS‐PAS centers preferred hysterectomy according to a woman's wishes (64%) and when they expected less blood loss and morbidity (41%). Eighteen percent of centers did not offer focal resection at all due to a lack of experience with this technique. Reasons for not offering to leave the placenta in situ were avoidance of unexpected reoperation (36%), puerperal infection (32%), or skepticism about the method (23%).ConclusionsUterus‐preserving treatment strategies such as focal resection appear to be safe alternatives to peripartum hysterectomy. However, less than half of the IS‐PAS centers perform them. Acceptance of conservative treatments could be increased by standardized criteria for their implementation and by systematic training for PAS experts.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3