MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2794359544 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.12433

The new world of placenta accreta spectrum disorders

2018· editorial· en· W2794359544 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Jauniaux, Robert M. Silver, Shigeki Matsubara

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2018
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal and fetal healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPlacenta accretaMedicineObstetricsPlacentaPlacenta PercretaObstetrics and gynaecologyHysterectomyGynecologyPlacenta DiseasesPregnancySurgeryFetusBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) search of the term "placenta accreta" at the time of writing of this editorial generated 2296 hits, including 147 for the year 2017 up to December 1, and 138 for the entire of 2016. Both years record more publications on placenta accreta than the entire period between 1947 and 1962. There are two different main categories of placenta accreta: the abnormally adherent placenta (placenta creta) and the abnormally invasive placenta. The latter category is divided between placenta increta and placenta percreta depending on the depth of penetration of the villous tissue into the uterine myometrium. As many articles do not differentiate between the two categories and/or do not provide detailed data on histopathology, to be inclusive we have opted to use the term placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders throughout this special themed issue of the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. The first case of placenta accreta listed on PubMed was reported in 1927 by Dr D.S. Forster, a scholar in gynecology at the Pathology Department of the Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Canada.1 This case, for which a hysterectomy had to be performed, was the only one recorded out of 8000 deliveries (0.013%) during a 6-year survey at the Montreal General Hospital. This case predates by a decade the now "classical" cohort study of 18 cases published by Irving and Hertig,2 who calculated the prevalence of placenta accreta to be 1 in 1956 deliveries (0.12%) in their study population at the Boston Lying-in Hospital, and 1 in 30 000 deliveries in the USA. Eight decades later, the prevalence of PAS disorders has jumped to around 1 in 500 (0.2%) deliveries in most high- and middle-income countries.3 In some cases, the high incidence of PAS disorders could be due to over diagnosis, secondary to the inclusion of cases of placental retention in many cohort studies.4 This may also have been the case in the study by Irving and Hertig since none of their cases had villous tissue penetrating the myometrium on microscopic examination.2 The distribution of risk factors and grades of PAS disorders has also completely changed from the 1930s. The case described by Forster was a case of placenta increta following a curettage during a second birth and manual removal of the placenta during a third delivery.1 Only one of the 20 cases personally treated by Irving and Hertig occurred after a previous cesarean delivery.2 Predisposing factors for PAS disorders in subsequent pregnancies until the 1950s were manual removal of the placenta and/or "vigorous" uterine curettage during a prior delivery. Today, around 95% of women presenting with a PAS disorder at delivery have had at least one previous cesarean delivery and the most common presentation is a placenta previa accreta.5 Moreover, there is strong evidence that the incidence of PAS disorders increases with the number of previous cesarean deliveries.6 Similarly, the ratio of adherent/invasive accreta placentas has changed from 70/30 in the 1970s to 50/50 in the last two decades3—a change that can be linked to the increase in the number of grand multiparous women with multiple cesarean scars allowing for deeper and extended villous invasion in subsequent pregnancies. Accreta placentation is now almost an entirely iatrogenic condition. With the continuous rise in cesarean delivery rates in most countries around the world, both the prevalence and incidence of PAS disorders will continue to increase. PAS disorders have become a leading cause of peripartum hysterectomy, maternal morbidity, and even mortality. The development of FIGO consensus guidelines on PAS disorders and a themed issue on this topic in a specialist international journal are timely. Both the FIGO guidelines and the peer-reviewed articles included in this issue address various aspects of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and conservative and surgical management of PAS disorders, and should provide readers with a comprehensive overview of this complex disorder. Recent progress has been made in standardizing the clinical and ultrasound diagnosis of PAS disorders,3, 4 but there is still need for authors to use inclusive terminology and to include detailed histopathologic data when possible. Within this context, multicenter prospective studies are essential to improve the perinatal management of PAS disorders. We hope that this themed issue will promote such collaborations at both the national and international level. EJ drafted the manuscript. All authors were involved in the critical discussion and approved the final version for publication. EJ is the guarantor of the article. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations45
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsMême sujetMaternal and fetal healthcareTravaux en français237 207