Advertisement

Examination of the Placenta

  • Kurt Benirschke
  • Graham J. Burton
  • Rebecca N. Baergen
Chapter

Abstract

Most placentas are normal, as are most babies. Therefore, an examination of all placentas may not be warranted, although this has been advocated repeatedly. Practical guidelines, including indications for the examination, have been published by the College of American Pathologists (Langston et al. 1997). This reference describes in tabular form the major abnormalities and their association with clinical features. Booth et al. (1997) inquired what reasons constituted the submission of a placenta for examination and found, regrettably, that it was Cesarean section delivery. This is hardly a good reason, as will be seen. A large number of surgical deliveries are repeat sections and have little impact on perinatal problems for which placental examination might be useful. Altshuler and Hyde (1996), on the other hand, found that 92% of placentas for which an examination was requested by an obstetrician or neonatologist had relevant pathology. Salafia and Vintzileos (1990) made a strong plea for the study of all placentas by pathologists. We concur with this view, as the sporadic examination does not provide sufficient training for young pathologists and it does not allow the “routine” pathologist to obtain sufficient background knowledge as to what constitutes a truly normal placenta. Another reason for the examination of all placentas is today’s litigious climate; it makes study of placentas highly desirable (see  Chap. 27). Furthermore, it has been shown repeatedly that a placental examination is needed to understand the causes of perinatal deaths. This was demonstrated, especially for stillbirths, by the study of Las Heras et al. (1994). The most important lesions were found in the umbilical cord (18%), with inflammatory lesions being second. Altshuler (1999) wrote a searching essay on the “placenta-related epidemiology” from his vast experience in these matters. Because placentas differ widely in shape, size, and in appearance, the novice must become familiar with this spectrum of placental shapes. To do so, a large number of placentas must be examined routinely. In hospitals with large numbers of deliveries, however, it may be prudent to select placentas for examination by the pathologist.

Keywords

Umbilical Cord Placental Tissue Normal Placenta Single Umbilical Artery Transfusion Syndrome 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ACOG (1991) Placental pathology. Committee Opin 102:1–2Google Scholar
  2. Altshuler G (1999) Placental pathology clues for interdisciplinary clarification of fetal disease. Trophoblast Res 13:511–525Google Scholar
  3. Altshuler G, Hyde S (1985) Fusobacteria: an important cause of chorioamnionitis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 109:739–743PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Altshuler G, Hyde S (1996) Clinicopathologic implications of placental pathology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 39:549–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avila L, Yuen RK, Diego-Alvarez D, Penaherrera MS, Jiang R, Robinson WP (2010) Evaluating DNA methylation and gene expression variability in the human term placenta. Placenta 31:1070–1077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barker DJ, Thornburg KL, Osmond C, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG (2010) The surface area of the placenta and hypertension in the offspring in later life. Int J Dev Biol 54:525–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barker DJP, Eriksson JG, Kajantie E, Alwasel SH, Fall CHD, Roseboom TJ, Osmond C (2011) The maternal and placental origins of chronic disease. In: Burton GJ, Barker DJP, Moffett A, Thornburg K (eds) The placenta and human developmental programming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 5–13Google Scholar
  8. Bartholomew RA, Colvin ED, Grimes WH, Fish JS, Lester WM, Galloway WH (1961) Criteria by which toxemia of pregnancy may be diagnosed from unlabeled formalin-fixed placentas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 82:277–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bejar R, Wozniak P, Allard M, Benirschke K, Vaucher Y, Coen R, Berry C, Schragg P, Villegas I, Resnik R (1988) Antenatal origin of neurologic damage in newborn infants. I. Preterm infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:357–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Benirschke K (1961a) Examination of the placenta. Obstet Gynecol 18:309–333Google Scholar
  11. Benirschke K (1961b) Twin placenta and perinatal mortality. N Y State J Med 61:1499–1508Google Scholar
  12. Boe F (1953) Studies on vascularization of the human placenta. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 32:1–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Booth VJ, Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Grether JK (1997) What factors influence whether placentas are submitted for pathologic examination? Am J Obstet Gynecol 176:567–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bouw GM, Stolte LAM, Baak JPA, Oort J (1976) Quantitative morphology of the placenta. 1. Standardization of sampling. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 6:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton GJ, Ingram SC, Palmer ME (1987) The influence of the mode of fixation on morphometrical data derived from terminal villi in the human placenta at term: a comparison of immersion and perfusion fixation. Placenta 8:37–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cindrova-Davies T, Yung HW, Johns J, Spasic-Boskovic O, Korolchuk S, Jauniaux E, Burton GJ, Charnock-Jones DS (2007) Oxidative stress, gene expression, and protein changes induced in the human placenta during labor. Am J Pathol 171:1168–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clausen HV, Larsen LG, Gundersen HJG (1998) Simple and efficient stereological quantitation of some placental structures. Trophoblast Res 12:41–56Google Scholar
  18. Crawford JM (1962) Vascular anatomy of the human placenta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 84:1543–1567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Driscoll SG (1963) Choriocarcinoma: an “incidental finding” within a term placenta. Obstet Gynecol 21:96–101Google Scholar
  20. Feneley MR, Burton GJ (1991) Villous composition and membrane thickness in the human placenta at term: a stereological study using unbiased estimators and optimal fixation techniques. Placenta 12:131–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher CC, Garrett W, Kossoff G (1976) Placental aging monitored by gray scale echography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 124:483–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox H (1997) Pathology of the placenta, 2nd edn. Saunders, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Fujikura T (1963a) Placental calcification and maternal age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 87:41–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fujikura T (1963b) Placental calcification and seasonal difference. Am J Obstet Gynecol 87:46–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Geller HF (1959) Über die Bedeutung des subchorialen Fibrinstreifens in der menschlichen Placenta. Arch Gynakol 192:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grannum PAT, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC (1979) The ultrasonic changes in the maturing placenta and their relation to fetal pulmonic maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 133:915–922PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gruenwald P (1964) Examination of the placenta by the pathologist. Arch Pathol 77:41–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gruenwald P, Minh HN (1961) Evaluation of body and organ weights in perinatal pathology. II. Weight of body and placenta of surviving and of autopsied infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 82:312–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Heifetz SA (1984) Single umbilical artery. A statistical analysis of 237 autopsy cases and Review of the literature. Perspect Pediatr Pathol 8:345–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jauniaux E, Campbell S (1990) Ultrasonographic assessment of placental abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163:1650–1658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jeacock MK, Scott J, Plester JA (1963) Calcium content of the human placenta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 87:34–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jiricka Z, Preslickova M (1974) The effect of fixation on staining of placental tissue. Z Versuchstierk 16:127–130Google Scholar
  33. Langston C, Kaplan C, MacPherson T, Manci E, Peevy K, Clark B, Murtagh C, Cox S, Glenn G (1997) Practice guidelines for examination of the placenta. Developed by the placental pathology practice guideline development task force of the college of American pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121:449–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Larsen LG, Clausen HV, Jonsson L (2002) Stereologic examination of placentas from mothers who smoke during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:531–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Las Heras J, Micheli V, Kakarieka E (1994) Placental pathology in perinatal deaths. Mod Pathol 7:5P (abstract 26)Google Scholar
  36. Lucas A, Christofides ND, Adran TE, Bloom SR, Aynsley-Green A (1979) Fetal distress, meconium, and motilin. Lancet 1:718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayhew TM (2006) Stereology and the placenta: where’s the point? – a review. Placenta 27(Suppl A):S17–S25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayhew TM (2008) Taking tissue samples from the placenta: an illustration of principles and strategies. Placenta 29:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayhew TM (2009) A stereological perspective on placental morphology in normal and complicated pregnancies. J Anat 215:77–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayhew TM, Burton GJ (1988) Methodological problems in placental morphometry: apologia for the use of stereology based on sound sampling practice. Placenta 9:565–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meller M, Vadachkoria S, Luthy DA, Williams MA (2005) Evaluation of housekeeping genes in placental comparative expression studies. Placenta 26:601–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller PW, Coen RW, Benirschke K (1985) Dating the time interval from meconium passage to birth. Obstet Gynecol 66:459–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Moessinger AC, Blanc WA, Marone PA, Polsen DC (1982) Umbilical cord length as an index of fetal activity: experimental study and clinical implications. Pediatr Res 16:109–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murthi P, Fitzpatrick E, Borg AJ, Donath S, Brennecke SP, Kalionis B (2008) GAPDH, 18S rRNA and YWHAZ are suitable endogenous reference genes for relative gene expression studies in placental tissues from human idiopathic fetal growth restriction. Placenta 29:798–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naeye RL (1985) Maternal floor infarction. Hum Pathol 16:823–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Naeye RL (1987) Functionally important disorders of the placenta, umbilical cord, and fetal membranes. Hum Pathol 18:680–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Panigel M (1962) Placental perfusion experiments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 84:1664–1683Google Scholar
  48. Pasupathy D, Dacey A, Cook E, Charnock-Jones DS, White IR, Smith GC (2008) Study protocol. A prospective cohort study of unselected primiparous women: the pregnancy outcome prediction study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 8:51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pathak S, Hook E, Hackett G, Murdoch E, Sebire NJ, Jessop F, Lees C (2010) Cord coiling, umbilical cord insertion and placental shape in an unselected cohort delivering at term: relationship with common obstetric outcomes. Placenta 31:963–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pidoux G, Gerbaud P, Laurendeau I, Guibourdenche J, Bertin G, Vidaud M, Evain-Brion D, Frendo JL (2004) Large variability of trophoblast gene expression within and between human normal term placentae. Placenta 25:469–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Priman J (1959) A note on the anastomosis of the umbilical arteries. Anat Rec 134:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pritchard JA, MacDonald PC, Gant NF (1985) Williams obstetrics, 17th edn. Appleton Century Crofts, NorwalkGoogle Scholar
  53. Reece EA, Scioscia AL, Pinter E, Hobbins JC, Green J, Mahoney MJ, Naftolin F (1988) Prognostic significance of the human yolk sac assessed by ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:1191–1194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Salafia CM, Vintzileos AM (1990) Why all placentas should be ­examined by a pathologist in 1990. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163:1282–1293 (See discussion Amer J Obstet Gynecol 165:783–784, 1991)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Salafia CM, Yampolsky M, Misra DP, Shlakhter O, Haas D, Eucker B, Thorp J (2010) Placental surface shape, function, and effects of maternal and fetal vascular pathology. Placenta 31:958–962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schremmer B-N (1967) Gewichtsveränderungen verschiedener Gewebe nach Formalinfixierung. Frankfurt Z Pathol 77:299–304Google Scholar
  57. Schuhmann RA (1982) Placentone structure of the human placenta. Bibl Anat 22:46–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Serkova N, Bendrick-Peart J, Alexander B, Tissot van Patot MC (2003) Metabolite concentrations in human term placentae and their changes due to delayed collection after delivery. Placenta 24:227–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simpson RA, Mayhew TM, Barnes PR (1992) From 13 weeks to term, the trophoblast of human placenta grows by the continuous recruitment of new proliferative units: a study of nuclear number using the disector. Placenta 13:501–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Torpin R, Hart BF (1941) Placenta bilobata. Am J Obstet Gynecol 42:38–49Google Scholar
  61. Travers H, Schmidt WA (1991) College of American pathologists conference XIX on the examination of the placenta. Arch Pathol Lab Med 115:660–731 (This is a composite of many articles by numerous authors)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Walker J (1954) Weight of the human fetus and of its placenta. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 19:39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zeek PM, Assali NS (1950) Vascular changes in the decidua associated with eclamptogenic toxemia of pregnancy. Am J Clin Pathol 20:1099–1109PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt Benirschke
    • 1
  • Graham J. Burton
    • 2
  • Rebecca N. Baergen
    • 3
  1. 1.La JollaUSA
  2. 2.Physiological LaboratoryUniversity of Cambridge Centre for Trophoblast ResearchCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine New York-Presbyterian HospitalWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations