Display options
Cite
Gizzo S, Noventa M, Vitagliano A, et al. Sonographic assessment of placental location: a mere notional description or an important key to improve both pregnancy and perinatal obstetrical care? A large cohort study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(8):13056-66
Gizzo, S., Noventa, M., Vitagliano, A., Quaranta, M., Giovanni, V. D., Borgato, S., Saccardi, C., & D'Antona, D. (2015). Sonographic assessment of placental location: a mere notional description or an important key to improve both pregnancy and perinatal obstetrical care? A large cohort study. International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 8(8), 13056-66.
Gizzo, Salvatore, et al. "Sonographic assessment of placental location: a mere notional description or an important key to improve both pregnancy and perinatal obstetrical care? A large cohort study." International journal of clinical and experimental medicine vol. 8,8 (2015): 13056-66.
Gizzo S, Noventa M, Vitagliano A, Quaranta M, Giovanni VD, Borgato S, Saccardi C, D'Antona D. Sonographic assessment of placental location: a mere notional description or an important key to improve both pregnancy and perinatal obstetrical care? A large cohort study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):13056-66. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26550228; PMCID: PMC4612913.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):13056-66. eCollection 2015.

Sonographic assessment of placental location: a mere notional description or an important key to improve both pregnancy and perinatal obstetrical care? A large cohort study.

International journal of clinical and experimental medicine

Salvatore Gizzo, Marco Noventa, Amerigo Vitagliano, Michela Quaranta, Valentina Di Giovanni, Shara Borgato, Carlo Saccardi, Donato D'Antona

Affiliations

  1. Department of Woman and Child Health-University of Padua Padua, Italy.
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona Verona, Italy.

PMID: 26550228 PMCID: PMC4612913

Abstract

During a standard obstetrical sonogram, the assessment of placental location (PL) is often limited to a mere notional description without formulating any association to possible implications on pregnancy and childbirth. The aim of the study was to speculate if different sites of PL may have a role in influencing fetal presentation-(FP) at birth and if certain pregnancy-complications may be more closely associated with one rather than with another PL. We conducted an observational-prospective-cohort study on pregnant women referred to the Ob/Gyn Unit of Padua University for routine third-trimester ultrasound scan. For all eligible patients we evaluated the correlation between sites of PL and perinatal maternal/fetal outcomes. Non-cephalic presentation was found in 1.4% of anterior, 8.9% of posterior, 6.2% of fundal and 7.2% of lateral insertions. FP at the beginning of the third trimester as opposed to presentation at birth was concordant in 90.3% of anterior, 63.3% of posterior and 76.5% of lateral insertions. Considering only non-cephalic fetuses we observed a decreasing probability for spontaneous rotation in the following lies: 88% anterior-PL, 80% posterior-PL, 77% lateral-PL, and 70% fundal-PL. Patients with posterior-PL (significantly associated with previous-CS) had a significantly higher CS-rate (due to previous-CS and breech-presentation). Significant differences were found in terms of gestational-hypertension and fresh-placental-weight between different sites of PL. In conclusion our data showed that an understanding of the role that PL plays in influencing the incidence of certain maternal-fetal conditions may assist Clinicians in improving perinatal maternal/fetal outcomes.

Keywords: Placental location; breech presentation; obstetrical ultrasound; perinatal care; pregnancy complication

References

  1. Reprod Sci. 2015 Oct;22(10 ):1289-96 - PubMed
  2. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;123(6):1327-34 - PubMed
  3. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):426-30 - PubMed
  4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;210(3):179-93 - PubMed
  5. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):451-61 - PubMed
  6. J Ultrasound Med. 2012 Feb;31(2):239-44 - PubMed
  7. Croat Med J. 2013 Apr;54(2):198-202 - PubMed
  8. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012 Apr;34(4):325-9 - PubMed
  9. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;55(1):307-23 - PubMed
  10. J Ultrasound Med. 2007 Nov;26(11):1481-9 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Nurs. 2009 Jun;18(11):1602-6 - PubMed
  12. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jun;99(7):2097-107 - PubMed
  13. Hum Reprod. 2013 Jun;28(6):1489-96 - PubMed
  14. J Ultrasound Med. 2013 Jun;32(6):1083-101 - PubMed
  15. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 Apr;101(1):39-42 - PubMed
  16. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013 Nov 06;2013:254901 - PubMed
  17. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013 Mar;39(3):550-1 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 03;10(2):e0114190 - PubMed
  19. Prenat Diagn. 2011 Jun;31(6):548-54 - PubMed
  20. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Feb;54(1):59-63 - PubMed
  21. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Oct;127(1):15-20 - PubMed
  22. Fertil Steril. 2013 Feb;99(2):496-501 - PubMed
  23. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;40(5):557-61 - PubMed
  24. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1978;57(4):371-2 - PubMed
  25. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:638093 - PubMed
  26. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Oct;25(10):2082-7 - PubMed
  27. Med Hypotheses. 2000 Nov;55(5):429-34 - PubMed
  28. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2013 Dec 01;14(4):190-3 - PubMed
  29. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2013 Sep-Oct;59(5):507-13 - PubMed
  30. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;111(4):875-80 - PubMed
  31. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;290(5):951-6 - PubMed
  32. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Sep;180:111-5 - PubMed
  33. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:783598 - PubMed
  34. Dis Markers. 2013;35(6):721-6 - PubMed
  35. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2000;40(4):11-2 - PubMed
  36. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Dec;25(12):2570-4 - PubMed
  37. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;106(6):1240-5 - PubMed
  38. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015 Jan;28(1):49-54 - PubMed
  39. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015 Jun;53(7):975-9 - PubMed

Publication Types