Search

Background: We compared Pfannenstiel and midline skin incisions for cesarean hysterectomy in women with confirmed Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorders. Aims: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of Pfannenstiel and midline skin incisions in women undergoing cesarean section hysterectomy for suspected placenta accreta at Akdeniz University Hospital between January 2010 and February 2022. Histopathological confirmation was obtained for all cases. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data, along with neonatal outcomes, were extracted from the hospital's electronic database. Possible complaints related to the incision site or other issues (e.g., vaginal dryness or sexual life) were identified through telephone interviews. Subjects were stratified into Pfannenstiel and midline incision cohorts, with subsequent data comparison. Results: Data from 67 women with a histopathologically confirmed PAS diagnosis were analyzed. Of these, 49 (73.1%) underwent Pfannenstiel incision, and 18 (26.9%) had a midline skin incision. Incisions were based on the surgeon's experience. Pfannenstiel incision was more common in antepartum hemorrhage, preoperative hemorrhage, and emergency surgery (p = 0.02, p = 0.014, p = 0.002, respectively). Hypogastric artery ligation occurred in 30 cases (61.2%) in the Pfannenstiel group but none in the midline group. Cosmetic dissatisfaction and sexual problems were more prevalent in the midline group (p < 0.05, all). Preoperative and postoperative blood parameters, transfused blood products, and neonatal outcomes were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Relaparotomy, bladder injury, blood loss, and need for blood transfusion were more prevalent in the Pfannenstiel group, while greater dissatisfaction with the incision was observed in the midline incision group. Midline incision seems to be more favorable in patients with Placenta Accreta Spectrum (PAS). Patients may be informed regarding the worse cosmetic outcomes and possible sexual problems related to vaginal dryness when midline laparotomy is planned. But before opting for a Pfannenstiel incision, patients should receive comprehensive information regarding the potential risks of relaparotomy and bladder injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to assess the additional contribution of karyotyping compared with genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for pregnancies at intermediate risk for trisomy 21 (T21), calculated using the maternal serum screening without major structural anomalies detected through sonography. Karyotype results of all pregnancies undergoing invasive prenatal diagnostic testing between January 2013 and March 2022 were obtained from a large hospital-based laboratory. Pregnancies with no major structural anomalies on ultrasound (including soft markers) and an intermediate risk for T21 on maternal serum screening were included in this study. The additional contribution of karyotyping for abnormal karyotype results was calculated after excluding results that could theoretically be identified with genome-wide NIPT. Among the 511 pregnancies analyzed, 13 (2.54%) were found to have abnormal karyotype results, 9 (1.76%) of which could theoretically have been detected with genome-wide NIPT. Within the cohort, 6/263 (2.28%) of women aged 35 years and older, and 3/248 (1.20%) of women younger than 35 years had results that could have been detected with genome-wide NIPT. After excluding results detectable using genome-wide NIPT, the additional contribution of karyotyping was found as 4/502 (0.79%) for the entire cohort, 2/257 (0.77%) for women aged 35 years and older, 2/245 (0.81%) for women younger than 35 years. Of the 511 examined pregnancies at intermediate risk for T21 by maternal serum screening, genome-wide NIPT would have failed to detect 4 of 13 abnormal karyotype results. The findings hold importance in guiding couples' informed decision-making processes regarding their choice of genetic screening and diagnostic testing in case of intermediate risk for T21., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.)