Does a Caesarean Section Scar Affect Placental Volume, Vascularity and Localization?
Caesarean section scar
placental vascular indexes
placental volume
three-dimensional ultrasonography
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Nov 2022
03 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
01
10
2022
revised:
21
10
2022
accepted:
01
11
2022
entrez:
11
11
2022
pubmed:
12
11
2022
medline:
12
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of abnormal placental implantation and adverse pregnancy outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. Besides the placenta accrete spectrum, only a few of the previous studies focused on other placental development alterations in the scarred uterus. We assessed placental development deviations in the uterus with a Caesarean section scar by evaluating placental volume (PV) and vascular flow indexes. From 1 January 2021 until 31 March 2022, placental volumes and vascularization indexes (VI, FI, VFI) were prospectively measured by 3D power Doppler and VOCAL techniques in 221 patients attending the first trimester screening program. We also calculated the placental quotient to standardize PV to the gestational age. No statistically significant differences in the values of placental volume, placental quotient and placental vascularization indexes were detected between women with previous Caesarean section delivery or women with vaginal delivery. FI was significantly lower in nulliparous in the first trimester. The results of our study suggest that 3D placental evaluation was not able to detect placental development alteration in the uterus with a Caesarean section scar. Future research needs to verify whether 3D power Doppler and Vocal techniques can provide more information if used in an earlier gestational age.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36359517
pii: diagnostics12112674
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12112674
pmc: PMC9689719
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Hum Reprod. 2020 Jul 1;35(7):1484-1494
pubmed: 32613231
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Nov;35(11):1065-72
pubmed: 26126703
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 May;295(5):1061-1077
pubmed: 28285426
J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Nov;27(11):1583-90
pubmed: 18946097
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 May;212:13-19
pubmed: 28327375
Hum Reprod. 2013 Jul;28(7):1943-52
pubmed: 23644593
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 May;145 Suppl 1:1-33
pubmed: 31111484
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;44(4):256-263
pubmed: 29393218
J Ultrasound Med. 2010 Aug;29(8):1203-12
pubmed: 20660454
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Mar;246:72-78
pubmed: 31962259
Placenta. 2009 May;30(5):391-7
pubmed: 19327824
Hum Reprod Update. 2022 Feb 28;28(2):153-171
pubmed: 34875046
Hum Reprod. 2020 Mar 27;35(3):595-604
pubmed: 32142117
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Feb;109(2 Pt 1):270-6
pubmed: 17267823
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;26(1):28-32
pubmed: 15937964
Placenta. 2003 Apr;24(4):336-42
pubmed: 12657506
Lancet. 2003 Nov 29;362(9398):1779-84
pubmed: 14654315
J Clin Med. 2019 Oct 11;8(10):
pubmed: 31614452
J Perinat Med. 2017 Aug 28;45(6):693-700
pubmed: 28306539
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Mar;140(3):274-280
pubmed: 29405319
Placenta. 2011 Feb;32(2):105-15
pubmed: 21115197
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jun;6(6):
pubmed: 34130991
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jan;31(2):209-215
pubmed: 28081642
Placenta. 2010 Sep;31(9):756-63
pubmed: 20633928
Adv Med Sci. 2014 Mar;59(1):23-7
pubmed: 24797969
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Jul;290(1):41-6
pubmed: 24496513
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Aug;14(2):139-43
pubmed: 10492874
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 Jul;36(7):1415-1429
pubmed: 28339117
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Jul;106(1):30-4
pubmed: 19356756
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Aug;100(8):1412-1418
pubmed: 33556213
Placenta. 2018 Sep;69:153-161
pubmed: 29622278
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Feb;36(2):135-41
pubmed: 26618611
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Nov;38(12):928-935
pubmed: 30188581
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Jun;138(2):147-51
pubmed: 17916401