Cited by 283Maternal and fetal healthcareBlood transfusion and managementUterine Myomas and Treatments

Conservative Versus Extirpative Management in Cases of Placenta Accreta

Kayem, Gilles, Davy, Céline, Goffinet, François, Thomas, Carole, Clément, Denis, Cabrol, Dominique·2004·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of conservative and extirpative strategies for placenta accreta on maternal morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients diagnosed with placenta accreta admitted to our tertiary center from January 1993 through December 2002. Two consecutive periods, A and B, were compared. During period A (January 1993 to June 1997), our written protocol called for the systematic manual removal of the placenta, to leave the uterine cavity empty. In period B (July 1997 to December 2002), we changed our policy by leaving the placenta in situ. The following outcomes over the 2 periods were compared: need for blood transfusion, hysterectomy, intensive care admission, duration of stay in intensive care, and postpartum endometritis. RESULTS: Thirty-three cases of placenta accreta were observed among 31,921 deliveries (1.03/1,000). During period B, there was a reduction in the hysterectomy rate (from 11 [84.6%] to 3 [15%]; P <.001), the mean number of red blood cells transfused (3,230 +/- 2,170 mL versus 1,560 +/- 1,646 mL; P <.01), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (5 [38.5%] versus 1 [5.0%]; P =.02), compared with period A. There were 3 cases of sepsis in period B and none in period A (P =.26). At least 2 women with conservative management subsequently had successful pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Leaving the placenta accreta in situ appears to be a safe alternative to removing the placenta.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.aog.0000136086.78099.0f

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kayem, G., Davy, C., Goffinet, F., Thomas, C., Clément, D., & Cabrol, D.
Affiliations
Hôpital Cochin (FR)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2004-09
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
531-536
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038841924
Cited by
283
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 21
FWCI
11.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Blood transfusion and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
placenta accreta, conservative treatment, placenta in situ, manual removal of placenta, hysterectomy, blood transfusion, disseminated intravascular coagulation, postpartum endometritis, maternal morbidity, maternal mortality
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Placenta Accreta, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies

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