Cited by 14Maternal and fetal healthcareBlood transfusion and managementUterine Myomas and Treatments

Placenta previa with posterior extrauterine adhesion: clinical features and management practice

Open access
Nagase, Yoshikazu, Matsuzaki, Shinya, Endo, Masayuki, Hara, Takeya, Okada, Aiko, Mimura, Kazuya, Hiramatsu, Kosuke, Kakigano, Aiko +6 more·2021·BMC Surgery

Abstract

Background: A diagnostic sign on magnetic resonance imaging, suggestive of posterior extrauterine adhesion (PEUA), was identified in patients with placenta previa. However, the clinical features or surgical outcomes of patients with placenta previa and PEUA are unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics of placenta previa with PEUA and determine whether an altered management strategy improved surgical outcomes. Methods: This single institution retrospective study examined patients with placenta previa who underwent cesarean delivery between 2014 and 2019. In June 2017, we recognized that PEUA was associated with increased intraoperative bleeding; thus, we altered the management of patients with placenta previa and PEUA. To assess the relationship between changes in practice and surgical outcomes, a quasi-experimental method was used to examine the difference-in-difference before (pre group) and after (post group) the changes. Surgical management was modified as follows: (i) minimization of uterine exteriorization and adhesion detachment during cesarean delivery and (ii) use of Nelaton catheters for guiding cervical passage during Bakri balloon insertion. To account for patient characteristics, propensity score matching and multivariate regression analyses were performed. Results: The study cohort (n = 141) comprised of 24 patients with placenta previa and PEUA (PEUA group) and 117 non-PEUA patients (control group). The PEUA patients were further categorized into the pre (n = 12) and post groups (n = 12) based on the changes in surgical management. Total placenta previa and posterior placentas were more likely in the PEUA group than in the control group (66.7% versus 42.7% [P = 0.04] and 95.8% versus 63.2% [P < 0.01], respectively). After propensity score matching (n = 72), intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the PEUA group (n = 24) than in the control group (n = 48) (1515 mL versus 870 mL, P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that PEUA was a significant risk factor for intraoperative bleeding before changes were implemented in practice (t = 2.46, P = 0.02). Intraoperative blood loss in the post group was successfully reduced, as opposed to in the pre group (1180 mL versus 1827 mL, P = 0.04). Conclusions: PEUA was associated with total placenta previa, posterior placenta, and increased intraoperative bleeding in patients with placenta previa. Our altered management could reduce the intraoperative blood loss.

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 · 10.1186/s12893-020-01027-9

Cites

37 of 37 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nagase, Y., Matsuzaki, S., Endo, M., Hara, T., Okada, A., Mimura, K., Hiramatsu, K., Kakigano, A., Nakatsuka, E., Miyake, T., Takiuchi, T., Ueda, Y., Tomimatsu, T., & Kimura, T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Osaka (JP)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center (JP)
Corresponding author
Matsuzaki, Shinya
Venue
BMC Surgery
Published
2021-01-06
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1471-2482 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3119267863
Cited by
14
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (21K09447)
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 previa, cesarean section, intraoperative blood loss, Bakri balloon, Nelaton catheter, posterior placenta, MRI diagnosis, surgical outcomes, propensity score matching
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Female, Postpartum Hemorrhage, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Middle Aged, Placenta Previa, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Blood Loss, Surgical, Premature Birth

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