Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Routine ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic evaluations of women undergoing postpartum manual removal of placenta: a retrospective cohort study

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to assess the rates of retained products of conception (RPOC) after routine postpartum evaluation of patients who underwent post-delivery manual uterine revision due to retained placenta.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 599 consecutive women who underwent manual removal of placenta during 2010–2018. Group A comprised 465 women who underwent postpartum symptom-based evaluation (2010–2016). Group B comprised 134 women who were routinely evaluated by ultrasound and subsequently by hysteroscopic examination 6 weeks after delivery (2016–2018).

Results

The rates of abnormal postpartum bleeding were similar between groups A and B (12% and 13%, respectively, p = 0.72%). A significantly smaller proportion of women underwent hysteroscopy in group A than group B (12% vs. 37%, p < 0.05). The rate of persistent RPOC confirmed by hysteroscopy was significantly lower in group A than group B (9.7% vs. 23%, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Among patients who underwent post-delivery manual removal of placenta, a threefold higher rate of RPOC was discovered by routine elective evaluation than by evaluating only symptomatic patients. Future studies may show whether this approach translates to an effect on fertility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Deneux-Tharaux C, Macfarlane A, Winter C, Zhang WH et al (2009) Policies for manual removal of placenta at vaginal delivery: variations in timing within Europe. BJOG 116:119–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Weeks AD (2008) The retained placenta. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 22:1103–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheung WM, Hawkes A, Ibish S, Weeks AD (2011) The retained placenta: historical and geographical rate variations. J Obstet Gynaecol 31:37–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Combs CA, Laros RK (1991) Prolonged third stage of labor: morbidity and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 77:863–867

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Weeks AD (2003) Placental influences on the rate of labour progression: a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 106:158–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hrazdirova L, Svabik K, Zizka Z, Germanova A, Kuzel D (2012) Should hysteroscopy be provided for patients who have undergone instrumental intrauterine intervention after delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91:514–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenstein MG, Vargas JE, Drey EA (2014) Ultrasound-guided instrumental removal of the retained placenta after vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211(180):e1–e3

    Google Scholar 

  8. Weissbach T, Haikin-Herzberger E, Bacci-Hugger K, Shechter-Maor G, Fejgin M, Biron-Shental T (2015) Immediate postpartum ultrasound evaluation for suspected retained placental tissue in patients undergoing manual removal of placenta. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 192:37–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Anteby M, Many A, Ashwal E, Yogev Y, Shinar S (2019) Risk factors and complications of manual placental removal after vaginal delivery: How common are additional invasive procedures? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 32:384–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sotiriadis A, Makrydimas G, Papatheodorou S, Ioannidis JP (2005) Expectant, medical, or surgical management of first-trimester miscarriage: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 105:1104–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nanda K, Peloggia A, Grimes D, Lopez L, Nanda G (2006) Expectant care versus surgical treatment for miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003518

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barel O, Krakov A, Pansky M, Vaknin Z, Halperin R, Smorgick N (2015) Intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic treatment for retained products of conception: what are the risk factors? Fertil Steril 103:775–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hooker AB, Muller LT, Paternotte E, Thurkow AL (2015) Immediate and long-term complications of delayed surgical management in the postpartum period: a retrospective analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28(16):1884–1889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Melcer Y, Smorgick N, Schneider D, Pansky M, Halperin R, Ben-Ami I (2016) Infertility Following retained products of conception: Does the timing of surgical ıntervention matter? Isr Med Assoc J 18:605–608

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vitner D, Filmer S, Goldstein I, Khatib N, Weiner Z (2013) A comparison between ultrasonography and hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine pathology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171(1):143–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Barzilai University Medical Center, HaHistadrut Street 2, Ashkelon, Israel

    Ahmet Namazov, Natanel Elkabetz, Ela Ivshin, Efraim Zohav, Simon Shenhav, Victoria Kapustian, Eyal Y. Anteby & Ofer Gemer

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Ahmet Namazov, Natanel Elkabetz, Ela Ivshin, Efraim Zohav, Simon Shenhav, Victoria Kapustian, Eyal Y. Anteby & Ofer Gemer

Authors
  1. Ahmet Namazov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natanel Elkabetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ela Ivshin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Efraim Zohav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simon Shenhav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Victoria Kapustian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eyal Y. Anteby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ofer Gemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AN: manuscript writing–editing, data analyzing; NE: data collection, data analyzing; EI: data collection; EZ: data analyzing; SS: data analyzing; VK: data analyzing; EYA: manuscript editing, supervsior; OG: Supervisor, project administration, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Namazov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

The study was designed as a retrospective study. All data was collected anonymously. The Ethical board waived informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Namazov, A., Elkabetz, N., Ivshin, E. et al. Routine ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic evaluations of women undergoing postpartum manual removal of placenta: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301, 715–719 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05433-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05433-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation