Opportunities for, and barriers to, uterus‐preserving surgical techniques for placenta accreta spectrum
Alexander Paping,Anja Bluth,Ammar Al Naimi,Mina Mhallem,Magdalena Kolak,Andrzej Jaworowski,Hubert Huras,Maddalena Morlando,George Daskalakis,Pedro Viana Pinto,Loïc Sentilhes,Heleen J. van Beekhuizen,Vedran Stefanovic,Karin A. Fox,Olivier Morel,Charline Bertholdt,Thorsten Braun,IS‐PAS
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14855
2024-05-04
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Abstract:Placenta accreta spectrum is a serious condition that can be treated by different surgical strategies. Most IS‐PAS centers prefer hysterectomy over conservative techniques. However, especially focal resection might be equally effective for women who want to keep their uterus. Introduction Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) can lead to major peripartum morbidity. Appropriate management approaches depend on the clinical severity, each individual's preference, and the treating team's expertise. Peripartum hysterectomy is the most frequently used treatment option. However, it can impact psychological well‐being and fertility. We investigated whether conservative treatment with focal resection or leaving the placenta in situ is associated with comparable or lower maternal morbidity than hysterectomy in centers of excellence within the International Society for placenta accreta spectrum (IS‐PAS). Furthermore, a survey was conducted to explore potential barriers to conservative management in antenatal counseling and intraoperative decision‐making. Material and Methods Confirmed PAS cases in the prospective IS‐PAS database from 22 registered centers between January 2020 and June 2022 were included in the analysis. A separate online survey with 21 questions was answered by the IS‐PAS center experts about indications, diagnostic criteria, patient counseling, surgical practice, changes from the preoperative treatment plan, and why conservative management may not be offered. Results A total of 234 cases were included in the analysis: 186 women received hysterectomy and 38 women were treated by focal resection, and 10 by leaving the placenta in situ. Blood loss was lower in the focal resection group and in the placenta in situ group compared to the hysterectomy group (p = 0.04). 46.4% of the women initially planned for focal resection, and 35.7% of those initially planned for leaving the placenta in situ were ultimately treated by hysterectomy. Our survey showed that the IS‐PAS centers preferred hysterectomy according to a woman's wishes (64%) and when they expected less blood loss and morbidity (41%). Eighteen percent of centers did not offer focal resection at all due to a lack of experience with this technique. Reasons for not offering to leave the placenta in situ were avoidance of unexpected reoperation (36%), puerperal infection (32%), or skepticism about the method (23%). Conclusions Uterus‐preserving treatment strategies such as focal resection appear to be safe alternatives to peripartum hysterectomy. However, less than half of the IS‐PAS centers perform them. Acceptance of conservative treatments could be increased by standardized criteria for their implementation and by systematic training for PAS experts.
obstetrics & gynecology