Ali ACAR, Ramazan BÜLBÜL, Mehmet Murat IŞIKALAN

Maternal outcomes of conservative surgery in women with postpartum hemorrhage caused by abnormally invasive placenta

Aim: In this study, we aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent hysterectomy and uterine-sparingsurgery in patients operated for the abnormally invasive placenta and to compare the results of cesarean section hysterectomy anduterus-sparing surgery which is the standard surgical approach for abnormally invasive placenta cases.Material and Methods: The record of 45 patients who were treated for abnormally invasive placenta in our clinic between January2011 and May 2019, were reviewed retrospectively. Fifteen of these patients underwent cesarean hysterectomy, while 30 patientsunderwent conservative surgery. The decision to perform conservative surgery or hysterectomy was made according to thepreferences of the patients. Demographic data, amount of bleeding, gynecological and obstetric histories, laboratory parameters,blood transfusions and duration of hospitalization were recorded. Data were obtained using the hospital electronic archive database.Results: The perioperative results of the conservative surgery group were superior to the hysterectomy group. In the perioperativeperiod, all patients in the hysterectomy group received transfusion therapy, while 54.5% of the conservative surgery group receivedtransfusion therapy (p=0.04). The mean amount of bleeding in the hysterectomy group was 2160(495-5715) mL and 1215(180-3645) mL in the conservative surgery group (p =0.04). When the hospitalization periods of both groups were examined, the meanduration of hospitalization was 6 (3-17) days in the hysterectomy group and 3(1-16) days in the conservative surgery group (p =0.012).Conclusions: Although the standard treatment for placenta invasion anomalies is cesarean hysterectomy, conservative (uterinesparing) surgery seems to be feasible for patients who desire fertility despite surgical difficulties. Therefore, the surgical treatmentof placenta invasion anomalies should be individualized.

PDF

___

1. Madazli R. Plasenta. “Plasenta Yapışma Anomalilleri”, İstanbul, 2008;23:329-36.
2. Oyelese Y, Smulian JC. Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:927-41.
3. Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, et al. Identifying risk factors for peripartum cesarean hysterectomy. A populationbased study. J Reprod Med 2003;48:622-6.
4. Faiz AS, Ananth CV. Etiology and risk factors for placenta previa: an overview and meta-analysis of observational studies. The official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstet. J Maternalfetal & Neonatal Med 2003;13:175-90.
5. Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:1- 8.
6. Miller DA, Chollet JA, Goodwin TM. Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:210-4.
7. Su HW, Yi YC, Tseng JJ, et al. Maternal outcome after conservative management of abnormally invasive placenta. Taiwanese J Obstetrics & Gynecology 2017;56:353-7.
8. Karaman E, Kolusari A, Cetin O, et al. Local resection may be a strong alternative to cesarean hysterectomy in conservative surgical management of placenta percreta: experiences from a tertiary hospital. J Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Med 2017;30:947-52.
9. Acar A, Ercan F, Pekin A, et al. Conservative management of placental invasion anomalies with an intracavitary suture technique. the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143:184-90.
10. Committee opinion no. 529: placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:207-11.
11. Cali G, Giambanco L, Puccio G, et al. Morbidly adherent placenta: evaluation of ultrasound diagnostic criteria and differentiation of placenta accreta from percreta. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : J International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;41:406-12.
12. Jauniaux E, Chantraine F, Silver RM, et al. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Epidemiology. the official organ of The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:265-73.
13. Sichitiu J, El-Tani Z, Mathevet P, et al. Conservative Surgical Management of Placenta Accreta Spectrum: A Pragmatic Approach. J Investigative Surgery 2019:1-9.
14. Shabana A, Fawzy M, Refaie W. Conservative management of placenta percreta: a stepwise approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;291:993-8.
15. Kutuk MS, Ak M, Ozgun MT. Leaving the placenta in situ versus conservative and radical surgery in the treatment of placenta accreta spectrum disorders. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;140:338-44.
16. Cetin Kilicci, Ilhan Sanverdi, Enis Ozkaya, et al. Segmental resection of anterior uterine wall in cases with placenta percreta: a modified technique for fertility preserving approach.J Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Med 2018;9:1198-203.
17. Rauf M, Ebru C, Sevil E, et al. Conservative management of post-partum hemorrhage secondary to placenta previa-accreta with hypogastric artery ligation and endo-uterine hemostatic suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2017;43:265-71.
18. Kalelioglu I, Corbacioglu Esmer A, Has R, et al. Management of Placenta Invasion Anomaly and Cesarean Hysterectomy: Eight-year Experience of A Tertiary Center journalagent.com 2013;10:143-50.