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

INTRODUCTION: Placenta 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 METHODS: Confirmed 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. RESULTS: A 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%). CONCLUSIONS: Uterus-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.

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of abnormally invasive placenta: recommendations from the International Society for Abnormally Invasive Placenta.

The worldwide incidence of abnormally invasive placenta is rapidly rising, following the trend of increasing cesarean delivery. It is a heterogeneous condition and has a high maternal morbidity and mortality rate, presenting specific intrapartum challenges. Its rarity makes developing individual expertise difficult for the majority of clinicians. The International Society for Abnormally Invasive Placenta aims to improve clinicians' understanding and skills in managing this difficult condition. By pooling knowledge, experience, and expertise gained within a variety of different healthcare systems, the Society seeks to improve the outcomes for women with abnormally invasive placenta globally. The recommendations presented herewith were reached using a modified Delphi technique and are based on the best available evidence. The evidence base for each is presented using a formal grading system. The topics chosen address the most pertinent questions regarding intrapartum management of abnormally invasive placenta with respect to clinically relevant outcomes, including the following: definition of a center of excellence; requirement for antenatal hospitalization; antenatal optimization of hemoglobin; gestational age for delivery; antenatal corticosteroid administration; use of preoperative cystoscopy, ureteric stents, and prophylactic pelvic arterial balloon catheters; maternal position for surgery; type of skin incision; position of the uterine incision; use of interoperative ultrasound; prophylactic administration of oxytocin; optimal method for intraoperative diagnosis; use of expectant management; adjuvant therapies for expectant management; use of local surgical resection; type of hysterectomy; use of delayed hysterectomy; intraoperative measures to treat life-threatening hemorrhage; and fertility after conservative management.

A clinico-pathologic study of placenta percreta.

OBJECTIVE: To review a single-center case series of placenta percreta and to evaluate risk factors and the impact of surgical techniques used in previous cesarean delivery. METHODS: The present retrospective cohort study included pregnancies with placenta percreta managed between January 1, 2002, and March 31, 2017, at Saint Luc University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. The data reviewed included demographics, outcomes, inter-pregnancy interval, and surgical techniques used for uterine closure in previous cesarean delivery. A cases series of non-accreta placenta previa was used as a control group. RESULTS: There were 19 pregnancies included in the study. The most common ultrasonography signs in the study group were loss of the clear zone (14/17; 82%), placental lacunae (17/17; 100%), and subplacental hypervascularity (11/14; 79%). Median gravidity, parity, and number of previous cesarean deliveries were higher (P<0.05) and inter-pregnancy interval was longer (P<0.05) in the study group than the control group. There was no difference between the groups in the surgical techniques used for previous cesarean deliveries. CONCLUSION: The prenatal ultrasonography diagnosis of placenta percreta is accurate and facilitates optimal management by a specialized multidisciplinary team. Multicenter studies are required to further evaluate the impact of the surgical techniques used for prior cesarean delivery on the risks of placenta percreta in subsequent pregnancies.

Ovarian cancer in pregnancy.

Although the occurrence of ovarian masses in pregnancy is relatively common, the majority of them is functional and resolve spontaneously; nevertheless, ovarian cancer is the fifth most common malignancy diagnosed in pregnancy. If malignancy is suspected, treatment should be decided on the basis of gestational age, stage of the disease and patient preferences. In early stage, ovarian cancer surgery may be planned preferably after 16 weeks of pregnancy, and chemotherapy can be administered from the second trimester if indicated as in non-pregnant patients. In advanced-stage disease, when complete cytoreduction is not achievable, neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be administered even in pregnancy. Chemotherapy should be a combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel in epithelial ovarian cancer patients and a combination of cisplatin, vinblastin and bleomycin in non-epithelial ovarian cancer. The outcome of patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed in pregnancy is similar to non-pregnant patients, and stage of the disease is the most important prognostic factor.

Comparison of Doppler-based and three-dimensional methods for fetal cardiac output measurement.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal cardiac output is conventionally measured using two-dimensional (2D) and Doppler ultrasound (Doppler). New methods based on 3D measurements of ventricular size in systole and diastole have been proposed. Our aim was to validate these tools against the conventional Doppler-based methods. METHODS: Fetal combined cardiac output was prospectively measured at 16, 20, and 24 weeks of gestation in 15 uncomplicated pregnancies using Doppler and three different 3D algorithms [virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL), sonographic automatic volume calculation (SonoAVC), and inversion mode]. We determined the inter- and intraobserver variability of the 3D techniques and assessed the correlation between Doppler and 3D. RESULTS: The 3D techniques showed adequate inter- and intraobserver reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.69-0.98), with the best reproducibility for SonoAVC and inversion mode. Bland-Altman analysis revealed low bias and relatively good correlations when comparing the 3D methods among each other, albeit with wide 95% confidence intervals. Doppler measurement of fetal weight-adjusted combined cardiac output (349.0 ml·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹) yielded significantly higher results than 3D CO measurements (177.2, 160.7, and 174.0 ml·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹ for VOCAL, SonoAVC, and inversion mode, respectively; p < 0.0001) and correlated poorly with the 3D methods. CONCLUSIONS: Although 3D volume-based cardiac output measurements are reproducible, results obtained with different methods are not interchangeable. SonoAVC and inversion have the highest intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Results of cardiac output measurement by 3D and Doppler cannot be interchanged.