Advertisement

Placenta Praevia, Placenta Accreta and Vasa Praevia

  • Jeremy Brockelsby
Chapter

Abstract

As the caesarean section rate continues to increase the number of patients with placenta praevia and placenta accreta also increases. The prenatal diagnosis of vasa praevia has also become more prevalent with improvements in ultrasound detection. These patients form a high-risk group at risk of major obstetric haemorrhage with implications for both mother and baby. Antenatal diagnosis relies on vigilance at the anomaly scan and subsequent imaging for confirmation including MRI. Antenatal admission may be required to reduce the risk of major haemorrhage outside the hospital environment. Delivery needs to be planned to employ the wider multi-disciplinary team to reduce both maternal and neonatal complications. The mainstay of treatment for placenta accreta will be caesarean hysterectomy, but a proportion of women may be managed more conservatively.

Keywords

Placenta praevia Placenta accreta Vasa praevia Morbidly adherent placenta Obstetric haemorrhage Antepartum haemorrhage Litigation 

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Placenta accreta. Committee opinion no. 529. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:207–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    RCOG Green Top Guideline No 27: ‘Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management’. 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shih JC, Palacios JM, Su YN, Shyu MK, Lin CH, Lin SY, et al. Role of three-dimensional power Doppler in the antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: comparison with gray-scale and color Doppler techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:193–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wing DA, Paul RH, Millar LK. Management of the symptomatic placenta previa: a randomized, controlled trial of inpatient versus outpatient expectant management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:806–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. College Statement: C-Obs. Placenta Accreta. 2003. www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/statements/C-obs20.pdf.
  6. 6.
    Baulies S, Maiz N, Muñoz A, Torrents M, Echevarría M, Sierra B. Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of vasa praevia and analysis of risk factors. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27:595–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nelson LH, Melone PJ, King M. Diagnosis of vasa previa with transvaginal and color flow Doppler ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76:506–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eller AG, Porter TF, Soisson P, Silver RM. Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG. 2009;116(5):648–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Consent advice no. 7: caesarean section. London: RCOG; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paterson-Brown S, Singh C. Developing a care bundle for the management of suspected placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;12:21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1226–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fetal and Maternal MedicineThe Rosie Maternity Hospital, Addenbrookes NHS TrustCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations