MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383058600 · doi:10.1002/uog.26299

Urological complications in women undergoing Cesarean section for placenta accreta spectrum disorders: systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4383058600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessandro Lucidi, Eric Jauniaux, Ahmed M. Hussein, Conrado Milani Coutinho, Sara Tinari, Asma Khalil, Alireza A. Shamshirsaz, José M. Palacios‐Jaraquemada

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta accretaHysterectomyCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisSurgeryObstetricsPregnancyPlacentaInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report on the occurrence of urological complications in women undergoing Cesarean section for placenta accreta spectrum disorders (PAS). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases were searched electronically up to 1 November 2022. Studies reporting on the urological outcome of women undergoing Cesarean section for PAS were included. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction using a predefined protocol and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, with disagreements resolved by consensus.The primary outcome was the overall occurrence of urological complications. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of any cystotomy, intentional cystotomy, unintentional cystotomy, ureteral damage, ureteral fistula and vesicovaginal fistula. All outcomes were explored in the overall population of women undergoing surgery for PAS. In addition, we performed subgroup analyses according to the type of surgery (Cesarean hysterectomy, or conservative surgery or management), severity of PAS at histopathology (placenta accreta/increta and placenta percreta), type of intervention (planned vs emergency) and number of cases per year. Random-effects meta-analyses of proportions were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: There were 62 studies included in the systematic review and 56 were included in the meta-analysis. Urological complications occurred in 15.2% (95% CI, 12.9-17.7%) of cases. Cystotomy complicated 13.5% (95% CI, 9.7-17.9%) of surgical operations. Intentional cystotomy was required in 7.7% (95% CI, 6.5-9.1%) of cases, while unintentional cystotomy occurred in 7.2% (95% CI, 6.0-8.5%) of cases. Urological complications occurred in 19.4% (95% CI, 16.3-22.7%) of cases undergoing hysterectomy and 12.2% (95% CI, 7.5-17.8%) of those undergoing conservative treatment. In the subgroup analyses, urological complications occurred in 9.4% (95% CI, 5.4-14.4%) of women with placenta accreta/increta and 38.5% (95% CI, 21.6-57.0%) of those described as having placenta percreta, and included mainly cystotomy (5.5% (95% CI, 0.6-15.1%) and 22.0% (95% CI, 5.4-45.5%), respectively). Urological complications occurred in 15.4% (95% CI, 8.1-24.6%) of cases undergoing a planned procedure and 24.6% (95% CI, 13.0-38.5%) of those undergoing an emergency intervention. In subanalysis of studies reporting on ≥ 12 cases per year, the incidence of urological complication was similar to that reported in the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing surgery for PAS are at high risk of urological complication, mainly cystotomy. The incidence of these complications was particularly high in women described as having placenta percreta at birth and in those undergoing emergency surgical intervention. The high heterogeneity between the included studies highlights the need for a standardized protocol for the diagnosis of PAS to identify prenatal imaging signs associated with the increased risk of urological morbidity at delivery. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.034
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207