Cargando…

Uterine cavity evaluation after uterine preservation surgeries for morbidly adherent placenta

INTRODUCTION: The morbidly adherent placenta (MAP) is usually associated with maternal morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the uterine cavity after uterine preservation surgeries for MAP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group comprised women ≥ 28 weeks pregnant with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khallaf, Mohamed S., Shehab, Mohamed A., Abdelazim, Ibrahim A., Amer, Mohamed I., Mohammed, Walid E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9871997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36704763
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pm.2022.124014
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The morbidly adherent placenta (MAP) is usually associated with maternal morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the uterine cavity after uterine preservation surgeries for MAP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group comprised women ≥ 28 weeks pregnant with confirmed MAP, with a desire for future fertility, and who agreed to uterine preservation surgery for MAP. The uterine preservation surgeries done for MAP include the following: uterine artery ligation, placental-myometrial en bloc excision, and/or internal iliac artery (IIA) ligation. Participants managed by uterine preservation surgeries for MAP were evaluated 3-6 months after the surgeries using office hysteroscopies to evaluate the uterine cavity after uterine preservation surgeries (primary outcome). The secondary outcome measures the pregnancy outcome after uterine preservation surgery. RESULTS: The hysteroscopic examination of the uterine cavity after uterine preservation surgery for MAP showed normal uterine cavity in 36 participants (90%), while it showed abnormal uterine cavity in 4 participants (10%). The abnormal hysteroscopic findings were a single abnormal hysteroscopic finding (endometrial polyp) in 2 participants (5%) and 2 abnormal hysteroscopic findings (incompletely healed scar with unilateral tubal ostial occlusion) in 2 participants (5%). The incidence of pregnancy after uterine preservation surgeries for MAP was 7.5% (3/40). CONCLUSIONS: The uterine preservation surgeries for MAP in this study had no effect on menstrual pattern, uterine cavity, or future fertility. The effect of uterine preservation surgeries for MAP on menstrual pattern, uterine cavity, and future fertility should be evaluated in future larger studies.