ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025
Exploring pathophysiological insights to improve diagnostic utility of ultrasound markers for distinguishing placenta accreta spectrum from uterine-scar dehiscence.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound assessment of maternal risk factors for uterine scar dehiscence in repeat cesarean deliveries: a case-control study from Beirut clinic.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Placenta accreta spectrum and uterine SCAR dehiscence: Distinct entities or a continuum? An expert debate and call for standardization.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the role of the rail sign and intracervical lakes in the management of patients with a high probability of placenta accreta spectrum.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- A Predictive Imaging Model for Cervical PAS in Complete Placenta Previa Using Combined Ultrasound and MRI.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of MRI versus ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a single-tertiary center study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- The critical role of diagnostic accuracy in differentiating uterine dehiscence and placenta accreta spectrum to enhance neonatal outcomes in complex cesarean sections.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Maternal and Clinical Outcomes of Placenta Accreta Spectrum: Insights from a Retrospective Study in Bahrain.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Analyzing Influencing Factors of Uterine Rupture in Pregnant Women with Scarred Uterus Undergoing Repeat Delivery and Evaluating the Predictive Value of Lower Uterine Anterior Wall Thickness.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Value of Combined MRI and Ultrasound Features in Invasive Placenta Accreta and Prediction of Adverse Outcomes.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAccurate differentiation between placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and uterine-scar dehiscence with underlying non-adherent placenta is often challenging, even for PAS experts, both prenatally and intraoperatively. We investigated the use of standardized two-dimensional grayscale ultrasound and Doppler imaging markers in differentiating between these closely related, yet distinct, conditions.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two centers with specialized PAS services. All consecutive women with at least one previous Cesarean delivery and a current pregnancy with a low-lying placenta or placenta previa, for whom detailed prenatal ultrasound, management and outcome information was available for review by the research team, were included. PAS was diagnosed clinically by the abnormal adherence of the placenta to the uterus. The PAS cases were classified using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical classification. Grade 1 was considered low-grade PAS while Grades 2 and 3 were classified as high-grade PAS. The ultrasound markers were categorized according to their underlying pathophysiology, including lower uterine segment (LUS) remodeling, uteroplacental vascular remodeling and serosal hypervascularity. The combined ultrasound features were analyzed among the PAS and non-PAS subgroups using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Additionally, receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined ultrasound features in differentiating between high-grade PAS and uterine-scar dehiscence.
resultsOut of the 150 cases retrieved, six cases were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria. The included 144 cases comprised 89 cases of PAS, 23 cases of uterine-scar dehiscence and 32 cases of uncomplicated low-lying placenta or placenta previa. Among the PAS cases, there were 16 cases of low-grade PAS and 73 of high-grade PAS. Combined signs of LUS remodeling were present in most cases of uterine-scar dehiscence (20/23 (87.0%)) and high-grade PAS (67/73 (91.8%)) (P = 0.444), while these signs were absent in cases of low-grade PAS (0/16) and uncomplicated low-lying placenta or placenta previa (0/32). A subgroup analysis of cases with all LUS remodeling features present revealed that the combined signs of serosal hypervascularity (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 41.2 (95% CI, 7.5-225.3)) and uteroplacental vascular remodeling (aOR, 116.0 (95% CI, 15.3-878.3)) were significantly associated with high-grade PAS. Diagnostic accuracy testing within this subgroup revealed an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-0.99), sensitivity of 89.6% (95% CI, 79.7-95.7%) and specificity of 90.0% (95% CI, 68.3-98.8%) for the diagnosis of high-grade PAS when all signs of uteroplacental vascular remodeling were present. If both signs of serosal hypervascularity were present, the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95) with a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 72.5-91.5%) and specificity of 85.0% (95% CI, 62.1-96.8%) for the diagnosis of high-grade PAS.
conclusionsThe combined ultrasound markers of LUS remodeling are common in both high-grade PAS and uterine-scar dehiscence, while the combined features of abnormal vascularity (uteroplacental vascular remodeling and serosal hypervascularity) are specific to high-grade PAS. Understanding these pathophysiological differences would enhance the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in distinguishing between these two conditions. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.