Maternal-Fetal Medicine Division, Obstetrics & Gynecology Department, Dr. Soetomo Academic General Hospital, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Anatomical Pathology Department, Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Jun;101(6):639-648. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14348. Epub 2022 Mar 17.
The incidence of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) has increased, but the optimal management and the optimal way to achieve vascular control are still controversial. This study aims to compare maternal outcomes between different methods of vascular control in surgical PAS management.
A retrospective cohort study on consecutive cases diagnosed with PAS between 2013 and 2020 in single tertiary hospital. The final diagnosis of PAS was made following preoperative ultrasound and confirmation during surgery. Management of PAS using cesarean hysterectomy with internal iliac artery ligation (IIAL) was compared with two types of vascular control in uterine conservative-resective surgery (IIAL vs identification-ligation of the upper vesical, upper vaginal, and uterine arteries).
Over an 8-year period, 234 pregnant women were diagnosed with PAS meeting the inclusion criteria. Uterine conservative-resective surgery (200 cases) was associated with lower mean blood loss compared with cesarean hysterectomy with IIAL (34 cases) in all PAS cases (1379 ± 769 mL vs 3168 ± 1916 mL; p < 0.001). In sub-analysis of the two uterine conservative-resective surgery subgroups, the group with identification-ligation of the upper vesical, upper vaginal, and uterine arteries had a significantly lower blood loss compared with uterine conservative-resective surgery with IIAL (1307 ± 743 mL vs 1701 ± 813 mL; p = 0.005). Women in the hysterectomy with IIAL group had more massive transfusion (35.3% vs 2.5%; p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 21.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9-66), major blood loss (>1500 mL) (70.6% vs 34%, p < 0.001; OR 4.7; 95% CI 2.1-10.3), catastrophic blood loss (>2500 mL) (64.7% vs 12.5%;p < 0.001; OR 12.8, 95% CI 5.7-29.1), other complications (32% vs 12.4%; p = 0.007; OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5-7.7), and intensive care unit admission (32.4% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001; OR 31.4, 95% CI 8.2-120.7) compared with the uterine conservative-resective surgery groups. The identification-ligation of the upper vesical, upper vaginal and uterine arteries had a significant lower risk for major blood loss (30.5% vs 50%; p = 0.041; OR 0.44, 95% CI = 0.2-0.9) compared with IIAL for vascular control of uterine conservative-resective surgery.
Cesarean hysterectomy is not the default treatment for PAS, PAS with invasion above the vesical trigone are suitable for uterine conservative-resective surgery with upper vesical, upper vaginal and uterine artery vascular control.
胎盘植入谱系疾病(PAS)的发病率有所增加,但最佳的管理方法和实现血管控制的最佳方式仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较 PAS 手术中不同血管控制方法的产妇结局。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2013 年至 2020 年期间在单家三级医院诊断为 PAS 的连续病例。术前超声和术中证实 PAS 的最终诊断。采用子宫动脉结扎术(IIAL)的剖宫产子宫切除术与两种子宫保守性切除术(IIAL 与上膀胱、上阴道和子宫动脉的识别结扎)的血管控制方法进行比较。
在 8 年期间,共有 234 名符合 PAS 纳入标准的孕妇被诊断为 PAS。与 IIAL 子宫切除术相比,子宫保守性切除术(200 例)的平均出血量较低(所有 PAS 病例中分别为 1379±769 mL 和 3168±1916 mL;p<0.001)。在子宫保守性切除术的两个亚组分析中,与 IIAL 相比,识别结扎上膀胱、上阴道和子宫动脉的组出血量明显较低(1307±743 mL 和 1701±813 mL;p=0.005)。接受 IIAL 子宫切除术的妇女需要大量输血的比例更高(35.3% vs 2.5%;p<0.001;优势比[OR] 21.3,95%置信区间[CI] 6.9-66),大出血(>1500 mL)(70.6% vs 34%,p<0.001;OR 4.7;95% CI 2.1-10.3),灾难性出血(>2500 mL)(64.7% vs 12.5%;p<0.001;OR 12.8,95% CI 5.7-29.1),其他并发症(32% vs 12.4%;p=0.007;OR 3.4,95% CI 1.5-7.7)和入住重症监护病房(32.4% vs 1.5%;p<0.001;OR 31.4,95% CI 8.2-120.7)的比例高于子宫保守性切除术组。与 IIAL 相比,识别结扎上膀胱、上阴道和子宫动脉可显著降低子宫保守性切除术的主要出血风险(30.5% vs 50%;p=0.041;OR 0.44,95% CI 0.2-0.9)。
剖宫产子宫切除术并非 PAS 的默认治疗方法,膀胱三角上方侵犯的 PAS 适用于采用上膀胱、上阴道和子宫动脉血管控制的子宫保守性切除术。