The Placental Pathology Report

  • Gitta Turowski
  • Susan Arbuckle
  • W. Tony ParksEmail author


The placental pathology report is an essential but often overlooked element in the communication of pathologic findings to clinicians. This chapter will first discuss the utility of the placental pathology report and the different uses clinicians may have for it. Next, the basic format of a placental pathology report will be described. The significance of each section will be assessed. Finally, formatting techniques that can make a placental pathology report less confusing and more easily understandable to the clinicians will be presented.


  1. 1.
    Barker DJ. The fetal and infant origins of adult disease. BMJ. 1990;301:1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attanoos RL, Bull AD, Douglas-Jones AG, Fligelstone LJ, Semararo D. Phraseology in pathology reports. A comparative study of interpretation among pathologists and surgeons. J Clin Pathol. 1996;49:79–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burton JL, Stephenson TJ. Are clinicians failing to supply adequate information when requesting a histopathological investigation? J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:806–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farias-Eisner R, Shapter A, Fu YS. The importance of communication between the pathologist and the clinician in caring for patients receiving gynecologic treatment. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103(4 Suppl 1):S13–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1040–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox GE, Van Wesep R, Resau JH, Sun CC. The effect of immersion formaldehyde fixation on human placental weight. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;115:726–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson JM, Irgens LM, Skjaerven R, Rasmussen S. Placenta weight percentile curves for singleton deliveries. BJOG. 2007;114:715–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Laat MW, Franx A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Nikkels PG. Umbilical coiling index in normal and complicated pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1049–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jessop FA, Lees CC, Pathak S, Hook CE, Sebire NJ. Umbilical cord coiling: clinical outcomes in an unselected population and systematic review. Virchows Arch. 2014;464:105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valenstein PN. Applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:84–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turowski G, Berge LN, Helgadottir LB, Jacobsen EM, Roald B. A new, clinically oriented, unifying and simple placental classification system. Placenta. 2012;33:1026–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walsh CA, McAuliffe FM, Turowski G, Roald B, Mooney EE. A survey of obstetricians’ views on placental pathology reporting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121:275–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gitta Turowski
    • 1
  • Susan Arbuckle
    • 2
  • W. Tony Parks
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pathology, Paediatric and Pregnancy Related PathologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Histopathology DepartmentThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmeadAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PathologyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations