Reply to the comments on "Modified hysterectomy for placenta increta and percreta: modifications of what?"

  • Ahmed M. Hussein
  • Ahmed KamelEmail author


I thank Dr. Matsubara et al. for their comments, they had asked “what about our technique is new?”, however, we are not presenting a new novel surgical technique but rather a modification of the already known type II radical hysterectomy that was described by Cibula et al. [1] to manage cases with abnormally invasive placenta (AIP). Our modification of this technique includes a systematic standardized stepwise approach that avoids unneeded extensive dissection of the parametrium and less need for total hysterectomy, which when applied to most cases of AIP improves outcomes and also shown by our results [2].

Dr. Matsubara et al. mentioned that opening the retroperitoneum as the first step cannot be usually done in patients with AIP as the entire pelvis is usually occupied by the uterus, however, there is no reported data on the incidence of posterior invasion in cases with PAS disorders, and in our experience posterior bulging of the placenta into the pelvis is very rare [2]. This...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Benedetti-Panici P, Kohler C, Raspagliesi F, Querleu D, Morrow CP (2011) New classification system of radical hysterectomy: emphasis on a three-dimensional anatomic template for parametrial resection. Gynecol Oncol 122(2):264–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hussein AM, Kamel A, Raslan A, Dakhly DMR, Abdelhafeez A, Nabil M, Momtaz M (2019) Modified cesarean hysterectomy technique for management of cases of placenta increta and percreta at a tertiary referral hospital in Egypt. Arch Gynecol Obstet. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jauniaux E, Chantraine F, Silver RM, Langhoff-Roos J (2018) FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: epidemiology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 140(3):265–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atallah D, Safi J, Kassis NE (2013) Placenta accreta and beyond: Aesop's fables. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(12):1430–1431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matsubara S, Kuwata T, Usui R, Watanabe T, Izumi A, Ohkuchi A, Suzuki M, Nakata M (2013) Important surgical measures and techniques at cesarean hysterectomy for placenta previa accreta. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(4):372–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jauniaux E, Collins S, Burton GJ (2018) Placenta accreta spectrum: pathophysiology and evidence-based anatomy for prenatal ultrasound imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218(1):75–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allen L, Jauniaux E, Hobson S, Papillon-Smith J, Belfort MA (2018) FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: nonconservative surgical management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 140(3):281–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matsubara S, Ohkuchi A, Suzuki H, Kimura M, Takahashi H, Fujiwara H (2015) Cesarean hysterectomy: amputation-first technique (Matsubara). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(5):552–553. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matsubara S (2012) Measures for peripartum hysterectomy for placenta previa accreta: avoiding uterotonic agents and “double distal edge pickup” mass ligation. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(6):1765–1767. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eller AG, Porter TF, Soisson P, Silver RM (2009) Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG 116(5):648–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiniger CF, Kabiri D, Ginosar Y, Ezra Y, Shachar B, Lyell DJ (2016) Suspected placenta accreta and cesarean hysterectomy: observational cohort utilizing an intraoperative decision strategy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 198:56–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of MedicineCairo UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations