Cited by 95Maternal and fetal healthcarePregnancy and preeclampsia studiesUterine Myomas and Treatments

MRI in the diagnosis and surgical management of abnormal placentation

Open access
PALACIOS‐JARAQUEMADA, JOSÉ MIGUEL, BRUNO, CLAUDIO HERNÁN, MARTÍN, EDUARDO·2013·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Objective. To determine the usefulness of placental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and surgical management of abnormal placentation. Design. Retrospective follow‐up. Setting. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Population. 547 pregnant women. Methods. In all cases, a direct and reliable description of abnormal placentation features was obtained by the operating surgeon. Placental MRI was analyzed according to: (1) primary description, (2) invasion topography, (3) modification required to the surgical tactics or techniques and (4) by positive and negative predictive values. Main outcome measures. Ultrasound and MRI findings were compared with surgical results, which were considered a final diagnosis in relation to primary diagnostic indications. Results. Placental MRI was obtained because of diagnostic doubt in 78 cases, for deep invasion diagnosis in 148 cases and to define the invasion area in 346 cases. Placental MRI allowed accurate demarcation and assessment of the degree of placental invasion, parametrial involvement and cervico‐trigonal vascular hyperplasia, permitting changes in the surgical tactical approach. Ultrasound and MRI differences were associated with placenta previa, uterine scar thinning and use of different criteria for placental invasion through definitions or terminology. Six cases of false‐negative and 11 of false‐positive findings were reported. Conclusion. Placental MRI provides excellent characterization of the degree and extension of placental invasion. Its usefulness in cases of adherent placentation is directly associated to the therapeutic measures, especially where dissection maneuvers are needed. Diagnostic differences between ultrasound and MRI related to the presence or not of placenta previa and uterine scar thinning.

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 · 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01527.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The main MRI features of placenta accreta include abnormal uterine bulging, dark intraplacental bands on T2-weighted imaging, heterogeneous signal intensity within the placenta, disorganised vasculature of placenta and disruption of the uteroplacental zone.

    “The main MRI features of placenta accreta include abnormal uterine bulging, dark intraplacental bands on T2-weighted imaging, heterogeneous signal intensity within the placenta, disorganised vasculature of placenta and disruption of the uteroplacental zone.”

    From Placenta Praevia and Placenta Accreta: Diagnosis and Management: Green‐top Guideline No. 27a (2019) · cites this paper as [145]

    The Conclusions figure captions (pages unavailable) show myometrial disruption and unusual vascular hyperplasia on MRI in cases of placenta percreta, supporting parts of the claimed imaging picture. Our copy does not identify uterine bulging, dark T2-weighted intraplacental bands, or heterogeneous placental signal as main features, and its vascular finding is not specifically disorganised placental vasculature. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]14. Gauthier T, Garuchet-Bigot A, Benacquista M, Odin I, Decroisette E, Vincelot A, et al. [Conservative management of placenta percreta invading the bladder: be patient]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011;40:169-73. [Article in French]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
PALACIOS‐JARAQUEMADA, J. M., BRUNO, C. H., & MARTÍN, E.
Corresponding author
BRUNO, CLAUDIO HERNÁN
Venue
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11
Volume
92
Issue
4
Pages
392-397
ISSN
  • 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0412
OpenAlex
W1898667567
Cited by
95
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
placental MRI, abnormal placentation, placental invasion, placenta previa, surgical management, parametrial involvement, placental ultrasound, diagnostic accuracy, placenta accreta
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hysterectomy, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Placenta Accreta, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prenatal Diagnosis, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Ultrasonography, Blood Loss, Surgical, Young Adult

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