BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021
Risk factors for non-adherent retained placenta after vaginal delivery: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Favilli Alessandro, Tosto Valentina, Ceccobelli Margherita, Parazzini Fabio, Franchi Massimo, Bini Vittorio, Gerli Sandro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Retained placenta represents a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality affecting 0.5-3% of all vaginal deliveries. The unpredictability of this condition makes difficult to develop predictive and preventive strategies to apply in clinical practice. This analysis collected and analyzed all known risk factors related to this obstetric complication.
METHODS: A systematic literature review for all original research articles published between 1990 and 2020 was performed. Observational studies about retained placenta risk factors published in English language were considered eligible. Conference abstracts, untraceable articles and studies focused on morbidly adherent placenta were excluded. The included articles were screened to identify study design, number of enrolled patients and retained placenta risk factors investigated. All stages of the revision followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.
RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The reported retained placenta prevalence ranged from 0.5 to 4.8%. Maternal age, previous cesarean sections, previous dilation and curettage, previous retained placenta, labor induction, resulted as the most recurrent, independent risk factors for retained placenta. Previous estro-progestins therapy, morphological placental features (weight, shape, insertion of umbilical cord, implantation site), endometriosis, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Apgar score are fascinating new proposal risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Old and new data are not enough robust to draw firm conclusions. Prospective and well-designed studies, based on a well agreed internationally retained placenta definition, are needed in order to clarify this potential dramatic and life-threatening condition.
METHODS: A systematic literature review for all original research articles published between 1990 and 2020 was performed. Observational studies about retained placenta risk factors published in English language were considered eligible. Conference abstracts, untraceable articles and studies focused on morbidly adherent placenta were excluded. The included articles were screened to identify study design, number of enrolled patients and retained placenta risk factors investigated. All stages of the revision followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.
RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The reported retained placenta prevalence ranged from 0.5 to 4.8%. Maternal age, previous cesarean sections, previous dilation and curettage, previous retained placenta, labor induction, resulted as the most recurrent, independent risk factors for retained placenta. Previous estro-progestins therapy, morphological placental features (weight, shape, insertion of umbilical cord, implantation site), endometriosis, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Apgar score are fascinating new proposal risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Old and new data are not enough robust to draw firm conclusions. Prospective and well-designed studies, based on a well agreed internationally retained placenta definition, are needed in order to clarify this potential dramatic and life-threatening condition.