Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39676233›Full record

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.

T Adu-Bredu, R A Aryananda, S Mathewlynn, S L Collins

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

T Adu-BreduNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
R A AryanandaAnatomical Pathology Department, Dr Soetomo Academic General Hospital, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0001-6674-7682
S MathewlynnNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
S L CollinsNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CicatrixPlacenta AccretaSurgical Wound DehiscenceUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultCesarean SectionDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansPlacenta PreviaPregnancyRetrospective StudiesUterusabnormally invasive placentaCesarean sectionhysterectomymaternal morbiditymorbidly adherent placentaultrasounduterine‐sparing surgery

Identifiers

PMID39676233
PMCPMC11693827

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.