Uterine artery pseudoaneurysm: a master of deception
- 224 Downloads
To the Editor,
I read the article, “Delayed postpartum hemorrhage: the implications of making a diagnostic mistake” by Surico et al. . Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) occurred after cesarean section (CS): a vascular abnormality was initially considered the culprit but uterine scar dehiscence proved to be its true culprit. The context of this article is that (1) PPH sometimes leads to a “diagnostic mistake”, and (2) hysteroscopy should be performed to confirm the diagnosis of PPH. We wish to comment on these two points.
First, we partly agree with Surico et al. first opinion: PPH sometimes leads to a “diagnostic mistake”. However, we would like the readers to recall uterine artery pseudoaneurysm (UAP), which has recently attracted wider attention as a causative disorder of PPH. Yes, PPH sometimes leads to a “diagnostic mistake”; however, not coexistence of, or misunderstanding as, vascular abnormality but UAP (acquired vascular abnormality) itself may lead to a “diagnostic mistake”.
KeywordsCesarean Section Postpartum Hemorrhage Color Doppler Sign Anechoic Area Initial Embolization
Conflict of interest
We declare no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Surico D, Codecà C, Vigone A, Surico N (2013) Delayed postpartum hemorrhage: the implications of making a diagnostic mistake. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:1053–1054 Google Scholar
- 7.Matsubara S, Usui R, Sato T, Kuwata T, Ohkuchi A, Nakata M (2013) Adenomyomectomy, curettage, and then uterine artery pseudoaneurysm occupying the entire uterine cavity. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 39:1103–1106Google Scholar
- 9.Matsubara S, Usui R, Watanabe T, Imayoshi M, Ichida M, Ando Y (2013) Perimortem cesarean section or perimortem cesarean supracervical hysterectomy? Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:389–390Google Scholar