|
|
|
| Clinical Analysis of 119 Cases of Pernicious Placenta Previa Caesarean Section |
| SHI Xiao, WANG Mu-lan, LU Jun-li, et al |
| Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Beijing 100020, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】To investigate perioperative management of pernicious placenta previa. 【Methods】The clinical data of 119 cases of pernicious placenta previa from January 2012 to December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: the completed placenta previa group and the non-central type of pernicious placenta previa group. Placenta implantation rate, postpartum hemorrhage amount, perioperative blood transfusion volume, operation time and uterine resection rate were analyzed and compared between the two groups. 【Results】Placental implantation rate in the central group was 36.8% (35/95), significantly higher than that in the non-central group 8.3%(2/24, P<0.01). Postpartum hemorrhage amount: The median value of postpartum hemorrhage amount was 800(200~16000)mL in the central group, the mean was 1562±2253 ml, and that in the non-central group was 300(150~4000)mL and 637±1043 mL, respectively. That of the central group was significantly higher than of the non-central group (P<0.01). Perioperative blood transfusion: in the central group,the blood transfusion rate was 38.9%(37/95), while in the the non-central group, it was 8.3%(2/24). That of the central group was significantly higher than that of the non-central group. Operation time: patients in the central group had significantly longer operative time (118±76 min) than those in the non-central group (82.8±38 min) (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in uterine resection rate between the two groups. 【Conclusion】Central type of pernicious placenta previa is more liable to acquire placenta increta, and the risk of hemorrhage and blood transfusion is higher than the non-central group.
|
|
Received: 22 March 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Chattopadhyay SK, Kharif H, Sherbeeni MM. Placenta praevia and accreta after previous caesarean section[J].Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol,1993, 52(3):151-156.
[2] Yang Q, Wen SW, Oppenheimer L,et al. Association of caesarean delivery for first birth with placenta praevia and placental abruption in second pregnancy[J].BJOG,2007,114(5):609-613.
[3] Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08[J].Lancet,2010, 375(9713):490-499.
[4] Zhu L, Zhang Z, Wang H,et al. A modified suture technique for hemorrhage during cesarean delivery complicated by complete placenta previa[J].Int J Gynaecol Obstet,2015 ,129(1):26-29.
[5] Adler E, Madankumar R, Rosner M, et al. Increased placental trophoblast inclusions in placenta accrete[J].Placenta,2014 ,35(12):1075-1078.
[6] 汪佳慧,金镇. 凶险性前置胎盘诊断及治疗进展[J].现代妇产科进展,2019,1(28):71-72.
[7] 周紫琼.完全性和部分性前置胎盘对产妇妊娠结局的影响[J].医学综述,2015,21(11):2084-2085.
[8] 蒋瑜,杨太珠,罗红,等.超声与MRI产前诊断凶险性前置胎盘的临床意义[J].中国超声医学杂志,2016,32(4):349-351.
[9] 黄安茜,谭艳娟等.超声联合磁共振检查对植入型凶险性前置胎盘的诊断价[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2014,23(5):567-569.
[10] Riteau AS, Tassin M, Chambon G, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placenta accreta[J].PLoS One,2014 , 9(4):e94866.
[11] 中华医学会围产医学分会,中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组.胎盘植入诊治指南(2015)[J].中华围产医学杂志,2015,17(7):481-485.
[12] 何玉甜,陈敦金.凶险性前置胎盘诊断和处理的再认识[J].中华围产医学杂志,2015,18(7):494-496. |
| [1] |
. [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 36(4): 730-731. |
|
|
|
|
2019, Vol. 36 
