Differentiating placenta accreta spectrum from scar dehiscence with underlying, non‐adherent placenta: A systematic review of scoring systems and primary data analysis

Author:

Adu‐Bredu Theophilus K.1ORCID,Aryananda Rozi Aditya2ORCID,Arkorful Joseph3,Matthewlynn Sam1,Collins Sally L.1

Affiliation:

1. Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health University of Oxford Oxford UK

2. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Maternal Fetal Medicine, Dr Soetomo Academic General Hospital Universitas Airlangga Surabaya Indonesia

3. Department of Medical Imaging University of Cape Coast Cape Coast Ghana

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionAccurate discrimination between placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and scar dehiscence with underlying non‐adherent placenta is challenging both on prenatal ultrasound and intraoperatively. This can lead to overdiagnosis of PAS and unnecessarily aggressive management of scar dehiscence which increases the risk of morbidity. Several scoring systems have been published which combine clinical and ultrasound information to help diagnose PAS in women at high risk. This research aims to provide insights into the reliability and utility of existing accreta scoring systems in differentiating these two closely related but different conditions to contribute to improved clinical decision making and patient outcomes.Material and MethodsA literature search was performed in four electronic databases. The references of relevant articles were also assessed. The articles were then evaluated according to the predefined inclusion criteria. Primary data for testing each scoring system were obtained retrospectively from two hospitals with specialized PAS services. Each scoring system was used to evaluate the predicted outcome of each case.ResultsThe literature review yielded 15 articles. Of these, eight did not have a clearly described diagnostic criteria for accreta, hence were excluded. Of the remaining seven studies, one was excluded due to unorthodox diagnostic criteria and two were excluded as they differed from the other systems hindering comparison. Four scoring systems were therefore tested with the primary data. All the scoring systems demonstrated higher scores for high‐grade PAS compared to scar dehiscence (p < 0.001) with an excellent Area Under the receiver operator characteristic Curve ranging from 0.82 (95% CI 0.71–0.92) to 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.96) in differentiating between these two conditions. However, no statistically significant differences were noted between the low‐grade PAS and scar dehiscence on all scoring systems.ConclusionsMost published scoring systems have no clearly defined diagnostic criteria. Scoring systems can differentiate between scar dehiscence with underlying non‐adherent placenta from high‐grade PAS with excellent diagnostic accuracy, but not for low‐grade PAS. Hence, relying solely on these scoring systems may lead to errors in estimating the risk or extent of the condition which hinders preoperative planning.

Publisher

Wiley

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