Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Perinatal Postmortem from a Clinician’s Viewpoint

  • Chapter
Keeling’s Fetal and Neonatal Pathology

Abstract

The perinatal postmortem examination is one investigation offered to parents after they experience the death of their child. From both the parents’ and clinicians’ perspective, the postmortem examination aims to determine what was or was not the cause of death and to identify any relevant associated factors. For parents, appropriate explanation of these findings can facilitate the process of grieving and aid in planning future pregnancies. For professionals, in addition to information for the parents, these data can provide population-level information about why babies die, which are key components of audit and ensuring safety of care. Despite these benefits the rate of perinatal postmortem examination is decreasing in many settings. We review the evidence for perinatal postmortem (and associated) examination in cases of stillbirth and neonatal deaths. We consider the consent process and feedback of information to parents and how this affects whether parents give consent for a postmortem examination. Finally, we consider what the likely developments in perinatal postmortem examination may be and how these will affect clinicians and parents.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cousens S, Blencowe H, Stanton C, Chou D, Ahmed S, Steinhardt L, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2009 with trends since 1995: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011;377:1319–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. UNICEF, World Health Organization, The World Bank, United Nations. Levels and trends in child mortality report: 2013. New York: UNICEF; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Flenady V, Middleton P, Smith GC, Duke W, Erwich JJ, Khong TY, et al. Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet. 2011;377:1703–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Bahl R, Lawn JE, Salam RA, Paul VK, et al. Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? Lancet. 2014;384:347–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alderliesten ME, Stronks K, Bonsel GJ, Smit BJ, van Campen MM, van Lith JM, et al. Design and evaluation of a regional perinatal audit. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;137:141–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dahl LB, Berge LN, Dramsdahl H, Vermeer A, Huurnink A, Kaaresen PI, et al. Antenatal, neonatal and post neonatal deaths evaluated by medical audit. A population-based study in northern Norway – 1976 to 1997. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:1075–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pattinson R, Kerber K, Waiswa P, Day LT, Mussell F, Asiruddin SK, et al. Perinatal mortality audit: counting, accountability, and overcoming challenges in scaling up in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107:S113–21, S121–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belizan M, Bergh AM, Cilliers C, Pattinson RC, Voce A. Stages of change: a qualitative study on the implementation of a perinatal audit programme in South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pattinson RC, Bergh AM. Implementing recommendations arising from confidential enquiries into maternal deaths. Best Pract Res. 2008;22:477–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green-top guideline 55 – late intrauterine fetal death and stillbirth. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 102: management of stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:748–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Flenady V, King J, Charles A, Gardener G, Ellwood D, Day K, et al. PSANZ clinical practice guideline for perinatal mortality. Version 2.22009.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Heinonen S, Kirkinen P. Pregnancy outcome after previous stillbirth resulting from causes other than maternal conditions and fetal abnormalities. Birth. 2000;27:33–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Reddy UM. Prediction and prevention of recurrent stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1151–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rankin J, Wright C, Lind T. Cross sectional survey of parents’ experience and views of the postmortem examination. BMJ. 2002;324:816–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heazell A, McLaughlin MJ, Schmidt E, Cox P, Flenady V, Khong T, et al. A difficult conversation? The views and experiences of parents and professionals on the consent process for perinatal postmortem after stillbirth. BJOG. 2012;119:987–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stock SJ, Goldsmith L, Evans MJ, Laing IA. Interventions to improve rates of post-mortem examination after stillbirth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;153:148–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ptacek I, Sebire NJ, Man JA, Brownbill P, Heazell AE. Systematic review of placental pathology reported in association with stillbirth. Placenta. 2014;35:552–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Faye-Petersen OM, Guinn DA, Wenstrom KD. Value of perinatal autopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:915–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kock KF, Vestergaard V, Hardt-Madsen M, Garne E. Declining autopsy rates in stillbirths and infant deaths: results from Funen County, Denmark, 1986–96. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13:403–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cartlidge PH, Dawson AT, Stewart JH, Vujanic GM. Value and quality of perinatal and infant postmortem examinations: cohort analysis of 400 consecutive deaths. BMJ. 1995;310:155–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cernach MC, Patricio FR, Galera MF, Moron AF, Brunoni D. Evaluation of a protocol for postmortem examination of stillbirths and neonatal deaths with congenital anomalies. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2004;7:335–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Saller Jr DN, Lesser KB, Harrel U, Rogers BB, Oyer CE. The clinical utility of the perinatal autopsy. JAMA. 1995;273:663–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gordijn SJ, Erwich JJ, Khong TY. Value of the perinatal autopsy: critique. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2002;5:480–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodriguez MM, Chaves F, Romaguera RL, Ferrer PL, de la Guardia C, Bruce JH. Value of autopsy in nonimmune hydrops fetalis: series of 51 stillborn fetuses. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2002;5:365–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alderliesten ME, Peringa J, van der Hulst VP, Blaauwgeers HL, van Lith JM. Perinatal mortality: clinical value of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging compared with autopsy in routine obstetric practice. BJOG. 2003;110:378–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Peres LC. Review of pediatric autopsies performed at a university hospital in Ribeirao Preto, Brazil. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:62–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hefler LA, Hersh DR, Moore PJ, Gregg AR. Clinical value of postnatal autopsy and genetics consultation in fetal death. Am J Med Genet. 2001;104:165–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hickey L, Murphy A, Devaney D, Gillan J, Clarke T. The value of neonatal autopsy. Neonatology. 2012;101:68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Elder DE, Zuccollo JM. Autopsy after death due to extreme prematurity. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90:F270–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Becher JC, Bell JE, Keeling JW, McIntosh N, Wyatt B. The Scottish perinatal neuropathology study: clinicopathological correlation in early neonatal deaths. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F399–407.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Elder DE, Zuccollo JM, Stanley TV. Neonatal death after hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy: does a postmortem add to the final diagnoses? BJOG. 2005;112:935–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Boyd PA, Tondi F, Hicks NR, Chamberlain PF. Autopsy after termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;328:137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rodriguez MA, Prats P, Rodriguez I, Cusi V, Comas C. Concordance between prenatal ultrasound and autopsy findings in a tertiary center. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34:784–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Johns N, Al-Salti W, Cox P, Kilby MD. A comparative study of prenatal ultrasound findings and post-mortem examination in a tertiary referral centre. Prenat Diagn. 2004;24:339–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kumari N, Pradhan M, Shankar VH, Krishnani N, Phadke SR. Post-mortem examination of prenatally diagnosed fatal renal malformation. J Perinatol. 2008;28:736–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hayati AR, Khong TY, Zainul R. The usefulness of limited placental sampling in stillbirths. Malays J Pathol. 1998;20:99–102.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Horn LC, Langner A, Stiehl P, Wittekind C, Faber R. Identification of the causes of intrauterine death during 310 consecutive autopsies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;113:134–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heazell AE, Martindale EA. Can post-mortem examination of the placenta help determine the cause of stillbirth? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;29:225–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rayburn W, Sander C, Barr Jr M, Rygiel R. The stillborn fetus: placental histologic examination in determining a cause. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:637–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tellefsen CH, Vogt C. How important is placental examination in cases of perinatal deaths? Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2011;14:99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ogunyemi D, Jackson U, Buyske S, Risk A. Clinical and pathologic correlates of stillbirths in a single institution. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:722–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Incerpi MH, Miller DA, Samadi R, Settlage RH, Goodwin TM. Stillbirth evaluation: what tests are needed? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1121–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. VanderWielen B, Zaleski C, Cold C, McPherson E. Wisconsin stillbirth services program: a multifocal approach to stillbirth analysis. Am J Med Genet. 2011;155A:1073–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bonetti LR, Ferrari P, Trani N, Maccio L, Laura S, Giuliana S, et al. The role of fetal autopsy and placental examination in the causes of fetal death: a retrospective study of 132 cases of stillbirths. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:231–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Heazell AEP, Byrd LM, Cockerill R, Whitworth MK. Investigations following stillbirth – which tests are most valuable? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96:Fa135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vergani P, Cozzolino S, Pozzi E, Cuttin MS, Greco M, Ornaghi S, et al. Identifying the causes of stillbirth: a comparison of four classification systems. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;199:319.e311–4.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Flenady V, Froen JF, Pinar H, Torabi R, Saastad E, Guyon G, et al. An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Michalski ST, Porter J, Pauli RM. Costs and consequences of comprehensive stillbirth assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1027–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gold KJ, Sen A, Xu X. Hospital costs associated with stillbirth delivery. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17:1835–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mistry H, Heazell AE, Vincent O, Roberts T. A structured review and exploration of the healthcare costs associated with stillbirth and a subsequent pregnancy in England and Wales. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Pathologists. Joint working party report on fetal and perinatal pathology. London; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Pathologists. Fetal and perinatal pathology: report of a joint working party. London; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Khong TY. A review of perinatal autopsy rates worldwide, 1960s to 1990s. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1996;10:97–105; discussion 106–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Omoniyi-Esan GO, Omonisi AE, Bakare B, Kuti O, Adejuyigbe E. Perinatal autopsies in a tertiary health facility in southwestern Nigeria: a retrospective evaluation of 14 consecutive cases. Niger J Med. 2014;23:153–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Confidential enquiry into maternal and child health. Perinatal mortality 2008: England, Wales and northern Ireland. London: Centre for Enquiries into Maternal and Child Health; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Bishop KL, Dupuis C, Nanton P, Clarke K, Bolt C, Chin-See C. Perinatal autopsy rates at the university hospital of the West Indies: 2002–2008. West Indian Med J. 2013;62:35–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Swinton CH, Weiner J, Okah FA. The neonatal autopsy: can it be revived? Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:739–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Confidential enquiry into maternal and child health. Perinatal mortality 2009: England, Wales and northern Ireland. London: Centre for Enquiries into Maternal and Child Health; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Holste C, Pilo C, Pettersson K, Radestad I, Papadogiannakis N. Mothers’ attitudes towards perinatal autopsy after stillbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:1287–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Breeze AC, Statham H, Hackett GA, Jessop FA, Lees CC. Perinatal postmortems: what is important to parents and how do they decide? Birth. 2012;39:57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Meaney S, Gallagher S, Lutomski JE, O’Donoghue K. Parental decision making around perinatal autopsy: a qualitative investigation. Health Expect. 2014. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Downe S, Kingdon C, Kennedy R, Norwell H, McLaughlin MJ, Heazell AE. Post-mortem examination after stillbirth: views of uk-based practitioners. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162:33–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Horey D, Flenady V, Heazell AE, Khong TY. Interventions for supporting parents’ decisions about autopsy after stillbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Online). 2013;(2):CD009932.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Downe S, Schmidt E, Kingdon C, Heazell AE. Bereaved parents’ experience of stillbirth in uk hospitals: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rose C, Evans M, Tooley J. Falling rates of perinatal postmortem examination: are we to blame? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2006;91:F465.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Henley A, Schott J. The sands audit tool for maternity services – caring for parents whose baby has died. London: Sands – Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sebire NJ, Weber MA, Thayyil S, Mushtaq I, Taylor A, Chitty LS. Minimally invasive perinatal autopsies using magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic postmortem examination (“keyhole autopsy”): feasibility and initial experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:513–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Cohen MC, Paley MN, Griffiths PD, Whitby EH. Less invasive autopsy: benefits and limitations of the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the perinatal postmortem. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2008;11:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Taylor AM, Sebire NJ, Ashworth MT, Schievano S, Scott RJ, Wade A, et al. Postmortem cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses and children: a masked comparison study with conventional autopsy. Circulation. 2014;129:1937–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS, Wade A, Chong W, Olsen O, et al. Post-mortem mri versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: a prospective validation study. Lancet. 2013;382:223–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ben-Sasi K, Chitty LS, Franck LS, Thayyil S, Judge-Kronis L, Taylor AM, et al. Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: healthcare professionals’ views and implications for practice. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:307–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Reddy UM, Page GP, Saade GR, Silver RM, Thorsten VR, Parker CB, et al. Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2185–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Harris RA, Ferrari F, Ben-Shachar S, Wang X, Saade G, Van Den Veyver I, et al. Genome-wide array-based copy number profiling in human placentas from unexplained stillbirths. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31:932–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Crotti L, Tester DJ, White WM, Bartos DC, Insolia R, Besana A, et al. Long qt syndrome-associated mutations in intrauterine fetal death. JAMA. 2013;309:1473–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Alexander Heazell MBChB(Hons), PhD, MRCOG

  2. St. Mary’s Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

    Alexander Heazell MBChB(Hons), PhD, MRCOG

  3. Newcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Alan Fenton MD, MRCP

Authors
  1. Alexander Heazell MBChB(Hons), PhD, MRCOG
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Fenton MD, MRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Heazell MBChB(Hons), PhD, MRCOG .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    T. Yee Khong

  2. Department of Histopathology, Women’s & Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    T. Yee Khong

  3. Department of Histopathology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK

    Roger D. G. Malcomson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heazell, A., Fenton, A. (2015). The Perinatal Postmortem from a Clinician’s Viewpoint. In: Khong, T.Y., Malcomson, R.D.G. (eds) Keeling’s Fetal and Neonatal Pathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19207-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19207-9_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19206-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19207-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation