Cited by 120Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementMaternal and fetal healthcareMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Natural history of Cesarean scar pregnancy on prenatal ultrasound: the crossover sign

Open access
Cali, G., Forlani, F., Timor‐Tritsch, I. E., Palacios‐Jaraquemada, J., Minneci, G., D'Antonio, F.·2017·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: Advances in prenatal imaging techniques have led to an increase in the diagnosis of Cesarean scar pregnancy ( CSP ). However, antenatal counseling when CSP is diagnosed is challenging, and current evidence is derived mainly from small series reporting high rates of adverse maternal outcomes. The aim of this study was to ascertain the performance of prenatal ultrasound in predicting the natural history of CSP using a new sonographic sign, the crossover sign ( COS ). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of early first‐trimester (6–8 weeks' gestation) ultrasound images in women with morbidly adherent placenta ( MAP ) managed in the third trimester of pregnancy. The relationship between the gestational sac of the CSP , anterior uterine wall and Cesarean scar, defined as the COS , was analyzed to determine whether it could predict evolution in these cases. Odds ratios ( ORs ) were calculated and logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between different types of COS ( COS ‐1, COS ‐2+ or COS ‐2–) and the occurrence of MAP . Results: Sixty‐eight pregnancies with MAP were included. The risk of placenta percreta was significantly higher in pregnancies with COS ‐1 than in those with COS ‐2 ( OR , 6.67 (95% CI , 1.3–33.3)). When evaluating the two variants of COS ‐2 separately, the risk of placenta percreta was significantly higher in pregnancies with COS ‐1 vs COS ‐2+ ( OR , 5.83 (95% CI , 1.1–30.2)) and this risk was even higher when comparing cases with COS ‐1 vs COS ‐2– ( OR , 12.0 (95% CI , 1.9–75.7)). Logistic regression analysis showed that COS ‐1 was associated independently with severe forms of MAP , such as placenta percreta and increta ( OR , 12.85 (95% CI , 2.0–84.0)), while COS ‐2+ was associated independently with placenta accreta ( OR , 4.37 (95% CI , 1.1–17.0)). Conclusions: Ultrasound assessment of the relationship between the gestational sac of a CSP and the endometrial line (the COS ) may help to determine whether a CSP will progress towards a less severe form of MAP , amenable to postnatal treatment, and successful pregnancy outcome. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings and elucidate the natural history of this condition. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.16216

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A caesarean scar pregnancy can be diagnosed using TVS from the second month of pregnancy using specific ultrasound criteria.

    “A caesarean scar pregnancy can be diagnosed using TVS from the second month of pregnancy using specific ultrasound criteria.129,130”

    From Placenta Praevia and Placenta Accreta: Diagnosis and Management: Green‐top Guideline No. 27a (2019) · cites this paper as [130]

    The Methods describe ultrasound images from 6–8 weeks’ gestation and specific criteria used to confirm cesarean scar pregnancy, supporting diagnosis in the second month. The passage does not identify the imaging as transvaginal sonography (TVS), so that part of the claim is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There has been an increase in reports describing implantation into deficient caesarean section scars and mounting evidence that a caesarean scar pregnancy diagnosed in early pregnancy can evolve into an abnormally adherent or invasive placenta in the second half of pregnancy.

    “More recently, there has been an increase in reports describing implantation into deficient caesarean section scars and mounting evidence that a caesarean scar pregnancy diagnosed in early pregnancy can evolve into an abnormally adherent or invasive placenta in the second half of pregnancy.126-130”

    From Placenta Praevia and Placenta Accreta: Diagnosis and Management: Green‐top Guideline No. 27a (2019) · cites this paper as [130]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 120

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [7]7. Zosmer N, Fuller J, Shaikh H, Johns J, Ross JA. Natural history of early first-trimester pregnancies implanted in Cesarean scars. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46: 367-375.
  2. [14]14. Benirschke K, Kaufmann P, Baergen RN. Pathology of the Human Placenta (5 th edn). Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2006.

Authors
Cali, G., Forlani, F., Timor‐Tritsch, I. E., Palacios‐Jaraquemada, J., Minneci, G., & D'Antonio, F.
Affiliations
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Arnas Civico Hospital Palermo Italy
  • New York University (US)
  • Centre for Medical Education and Clinical Research (CEMIC) University Hospital Buenos Aires Argentina
  • Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences UiT–The Arctic University of Norway Tromsø Norway
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-07
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
100-104
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2470335107
Cited by
120
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6
FWCI
8.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
cesarean scar pregnancy, placenta accreta spectrum, crossover sign, prenatal ultrasound, placenta percreta, placenta accreta, placenta increta, gestational sac, uterine scar, first-trimester ultrasound, antenatal counseling, pregnancy outcomes, antepartum hemorrhage
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Cicatrix, Female, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy, Ectopic, Retrospective Studies, Risk, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review