Efficacy of intraoperative wireless ultrasonography for uterine incision among patients with adherence findings in placenta previa

Choi, Min J.; Lim, Cheong; Jeong, D.H.; Jeon, Hae-rin; Cho, Kyung J.; Kim, Suk Y.

doi:10.1111/jog.14243

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Manualysis after delivery was documented in four patients (6%), while adherent placenta complicates 1-3% of deliveries in the general population 17 and the reported incidence of manual removal of placenta is 2.7% 18 . Placenta previa was also found in 2% of our patients, while the incidence in the general population is reported to be 0.3-0.5 % 19 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

Obstetric Outcomes After Perforation of Uterine Cavity

Schwarzman

Baumfeld

Mastrolia

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the pregnancy characteristics and obstetric outcomes in patients after perforation of uterus.Study design: A retrospective, case control study was conducted and included all patients who were diagnosed with uterine perforation and treated in a tertiary referral medical center between the years 1996 to 2018. Up to two deliveries after perforations were investigated.Results: During the study period, 51 women were diagnosed with uterine perforation during gynecological procedures, including intrauterine device (IUD) insertion. The mean age of patients at the time of diagnosis was 27.9 (±4.7) years. The majority, 76.5% (n=39), experienced perforation during IUD insertion, and 23.5% (n=12) of the patients experienced perforation during surgical procedures. Most of the patients were multiparous or grand multiparous, 45.8. % (n=22) and 39.6% (n=19) respectively. Anteflexed uterus found in 86.4% of patients (n=38). Five patients (9.8%) had pelvic abscesses after the IUD insertion. 50 patients had 71 deliveries subsequent the uterine perforation. One patient had intrauterine fetal death due to fetal malformations. One patient had uterine rupture. No other major obstetric complications were noted.Conclusion: Uterine perforation may impair obstetric outcomes; the possibility of uterine rupture must be considered while managing deliveries of patients post uterine perforation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

Obstetric Outcomes After Perforation of Uterine Cavity

Schwarzman

Baumfeld

Mastrolia

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Manualysis after delivery was documented in four patients (5.6%), while adherent placenta complicates 1–3% of deliveries in the general population [ 18 ] and the reported incidence of the manual removal of the placenta is 2.7% [ 19 ]. Placenta previa was also found in 1.4% of our patients, while the incidence in the general population is reported to be 0.3–0.5% [ 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Obstetric Outcomes after Perforation of Uterine Cavity

Schwarzman

Baumfeld

Mastrolia

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to evaluate the pregnancy characteristics and obstetric outcomes in patients after perforation of the uterus. Study design: A retrospective cohort study was conducted and included all patients who were diagnosed with uterine perforation and treated in a tertiary referral medical center between the years 1996 and 2018. Up to two deliveries after perforations were investigated. Results: During the study period, 51 women were diagnosed with uterine perforation during gynecological procedures, including intrauterine device (IUD) insertion. The mean age of patients at the time of diagnosis was 27.9 (±4.7) years. The majority, 76.5% (n = 39), experienced perforation during IUD insertion, and 23.5% (n = 12) of the patients experienced perforation during surgical procedures. Most of the patients were multiparous or grand multiparous, 45.8. % (n = 22) and 39.6% (n = 19) respectively. Anteflexed uterus was found in 86.4% of the patients (n = 38). Five patients (9.8%) had pelvic abscesses after the IUD insertion. A total of 50 patients had 71 deliveries subsequent to uterine perforation. One patient experienced intrauterine fetal death due to fetal malformations. One patient experienced uterine rupture. No other major obstetric complications were noted. Conclusions: Uterine perforation may be associated with adverse obstetric outcomes. The possibility of uterine rupture must be considered while managing the deliveries of patients after uterine perforation. Moreover, a larger cohort and further studies are needed to establish an association between uterine perforation and adverse outcomes of the subsequent deliveries.

show abstract

“…Placenta praevia has been reported to account for 1.4% of patients with a history of uterine rupture, while the rate of placenta praevia in the general population is much lower, at 0.3-0.5% [60]. The need for manual removal of the placenta after vaginal delivery in patients with prior injury of the uterine wall has been documented to be 2.7% [61]. In addition, patients with history of uterine perforation have a higher risk of uterine rupture that must be addressed during delivery [5].…”

Section: Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Uterine Perforation as a Complication of the Intrauterine Procedures Causing Omentum Incarceration: A Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Omentum involvement resulting from uterine perforation is a rare complication following intrauterine procedures that might require immediate intervention due to severe ischemic consequences. This review examines the prevalence of this complication, risk factors, the mode and timing of diagnosis, the proper management and the outcome. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, PubMed Central and Scopus using uterine perforation, D&C, abortion and omentum as keywords. The exclusion criteria included the presence of the uterus or placenta’s malignancy and uterine perforation following delivery or caused by an intrauterine device. Results: The review included 11 articles from 133 screened papers. We identified 12 cases that three evaluators further analysed. We also present the case of a 32-year-old woman diagnosed with uterine perforation and omentum involvement. The patient underwent a hysteroscopic procedure with resectioning the protruding omentum into the uterine cavity, followed by intrauterine device insertion. Conclusion: This paper highlights the importance of a comprehensive gynaecological evaluation following a D&C procedure that includes a thorough clinical examination and a detailed ultrasound assessment. Healthcare providers should not overlook the diagnosis of omentum involvement in the presence of a history of intrauterine procedures.

show abstract

Efficacy of intraoperative wireless ultrasonography for uterine incision among patients with adherence findings in placenta previa

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Obstetric Outcomes After Perforation of Uterine Cavity

Obstetric Outcomes After Perforation of Uterine Cavity

Obstetric Outcomes after Perforation of Uterine Cavity

Uterine Perforation as a Complication of the Intrauterine Procedures Causing Omentum Incarceration: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About