Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 95–101 | Cite as

Self-reported physical, mental, and reproductive sequelae after treatment of abnormally invasive placenta: a single-center observational study

  • Julia WelzEmail author
  • Mignon-Denise Keyver-Paik
  • Ulrich Gembruch
  • Waltraut Maria Merz
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



To analyze the types of treatment of abnormally invasive placenta (AIP) and to investigate the self-reported physical and mental short- and long-term sequelae.


This single-center observational study was performed between 2003 and 2017. Women with prenatal or intrapartum diagnosis of AIP were identified through the departmental database. Classification was performed according to the time of diagnosis establishment and the type of treatment. Medical complications overall and according to the type of treatment were analyzed. Data about women’s perception of diagnosis, treatment, and short- and long-term sequelae were gathered by questionnaire.


Cases were classified into four groups: prenatal diagnosis, cesarean hysterectomy (A, n = 10); prenatal diagnosis, expectant management (B, n = 19); intrapartum diagnosis, cesarean hysterectomy (C, n = 6); intrapartum diagnosis, conservative therapy (D, n = 20). Depth of invasion, total units of transfused red blood cells, and the need for reoperation differed between the treatment groups. Expectant management was successful in 94.7% of cases. Irrespective of the treatment group, 73.3% of women perceived the condition as serious or life-threatening; 30.0% utilized psychological support; and 36.7% reported persistent pain or problems. 37.5% of women after uterine preservation had another live birth, AIP recurred in 44.4% of cases.


Conservative management of AIP is feasible in selected cases. The condition is perceived as life-threatening and has a lasting impact on the physical, mental, and reproductive health of those affected. This finding merits further investigation. AIP continues to be a condition with high morbidity.


Cesarean hysterectomy Abnormally invasive placenta Accrete Inreta Percreta Placenta Expectant management Conservative management 


Author contribution

JW: data collection and management; data analysis; manuscript writing and editing; final approval; agreement to be accountable. M-DK-P: data collection; manuscript editing; final approval; agreement to be accountable. UG: project development; data collection and management; manuscript editing; final approval; agreement to be accountable. WMM: data collection and management, data analysis; manuscript writing and editing; final approval; agreement to be accountable.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The University Bonn Institutional Review Board does not require formal approval for retrospective observational studies, therefore, ethics approval was not sought. For the questionnaire, written informed consent was obtained from all women.

Supplementary material

404_2019_5175_MOESM1_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 38 kb)


  1. 1.
    Eller AG, Porter TF, Soisson P, Silver RM (2009) Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG 116(5):648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belfort MA (2010) Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:430–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandraharan E, Rao S, Belli A-M, Arulkumaran S (2012) The Triple-P procedure as a conservative surgical alternative to peripartum hysterectomy for placenta percreta. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 117(2):191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kotsuji F, Nishijima K, Kurokawa T, Yoshida Y, Sekiya T, Banzai M et al (2013) Transverse uterine fundal incision for placenta praevia with accreta, involving the entire anterior uterine wall: a case series. BJOG 120(9):1144–1149 (cited 2018 Nov 2) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eshkoli T, Weintraub AY, Sergienko R, Sheiner E (2013) Placenta accreta: risk factors, perinatal outcomes, and consequences for subsequent births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(3):219.e1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perez-Delboy A, Wright JD (2014) Surgical management of placenta accreta: to leave or remove the placenta? BJOG 121(2):163–169 (discussion 169–170) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bailit JL, Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Varner MW et al (2015) Morbidly adherent placenta treatments and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 125(3):683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colmorn LB, Petersen KB, Jakobsson M, Lindqvist PG, Klungsoyr K, Källen K et al (2015) The Nordic Obstetric Surveillance Study: a study of complete uterine rupture, abnormally invasive placenta, peripartum hysterectomy, and severe blood loss at delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(7):734–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thurn L, Lindqvist PG, Jakobsson M, Colmorn LB, Klungsoyr K, Bjarnadóttir RI et al (2016) Abnormally invasive placenta-prevalence, risk factors and antenatal suspicion: results from a large population-based pregnancy cohort study in the Nordic countries. BJOG 123(8):1348–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sentilhes L, Kayem G, Silver R (2018) Conservative Management of Conservativ management of placenta accreta spectrum. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 00:1–12Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen L, Jauniaux E, Hobson S, Papillon-Smith J, Belfort MA (2018) FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: nonconservative surgical management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 140(3):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eller AG, Bennett MA, Sharshiner M, Masheter C, Soisson AP, Dodson M et al (2011) Maternal morbidity in cases of placenta accreta managed by a multidisciplinary care team compared with standard obstetric care. Obstet Gynecol 117(2, Part 1):331–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pilloni E, Alemanno MG, Gaglioti P, Sciarrone A, Garofalo A, Biolcati M et al (2016) Accuracy of ultrasound in antenatal diagnosis of placental attachment disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47(3):302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palacios-Jaraquemada JM (2008) Diagnosis and management of placenta accreta. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 22(6):1133–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amsalem H, Kingdom JCP, Farine D, Allen L, Yinon Y, D’Souza DL et al (2011) Planned caesarean hysterectomy versus “conserving” caesarean section in patients with placenta accreta. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada 33(10):1005–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clausen C, Stensballe J, Albrechtsen CK, Hansen MA, Lönn L, Langhoff-Roos J (2013) Balloon occlusion of the internal iliac arteries in the multidisciplinary management of placenta percreta. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(4):386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shabana A, Fawzy M, Refaie W (2015) Conservative management of placenta percreta: a stepwise approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(5):993–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D'Souza DL, Kingdom JC, Amsalem H, Beecroft JR, Windrim RC, Kachura JR (2015) Conservative management of invasive placenta using combined prophylactic internal iliac artery balloon occlusion and immediate postoperative uterine artery embolization. Can Assoc Radiol J 66(2):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salim R, Chulski A, Romano S, Garmi G, Rudin M, Shalev E (2015) Precesarean prophylactic balloon catheters for suspected placenta accreta: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 126(5):1022–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Angileri SALM, Raspanti C, Ierardi AM, Carrafiello G, Belli A-M (2017) Prophylactic occlusion balloon placement in internal iliac arteries for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage due to morbidly adherent placenta: short term outcomes. Radiol Med 122(10):798–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bouvier A, Sentilhes L, Thouveny F, Bouet P-E, Gillard P, Willoteaux S et al (2012) Planned caesarean in the interventional radiology cath lab to enable immediate uterine artery embolization for the conservative treatment of placenta accreta. Clin Radiol 67(11):1089–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noufaily A, Achou R, Ashram M, Mokbel M, Dabaj E, Snaifer E et al (2017) Uterine artery embolization for management of placenta accreta, a single-center experience and literature review. Arab J Intervent Radiol 1(1):37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kayem G, Davy C, Goffinet F, Thomas C, Clément D, Cabrol D (2004) Conservative versus extirpative management in cases of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol 104(3):531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Timmermans S, van Hof AC, Duvekot JJ (2007) Conservative management of abnormally invasive placentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 62(8):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sentilhes L, Kayem G, Ambroselli C, Provansal M, Fernandez H, Perrotin F et al (2010) Fertility and pregnancy outcomes following conservative treatment for placenta accreta. Hum Reprod 25(11):2803–2810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clausen C, Lönn L, Langhoff-Roos J (2014) Management of placenta percreta: a review of published cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93(2):138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fox KA, Shamshirsaz AA, Carusi D, Secord AA, Lee P, Turan OM et al (2015) Conservative management of morbidly adherent placenta: expert review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(6):755–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marcellin L, Delorme P, Bonnet MP, Grange G, Kayem G, Tsatsaris V et al (2018) Placenta percreta is associated with more frequent severe maternal morbidity than placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 219(2):193.e1–193.e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuzaki S, Yoshino K, Endo M, Kakigano A, Takiuchi T, Kimura T (2018) Conservative management of placenta percreta. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 140(3):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meng X, Xie L, Song W (2013) Comparing the diagnostic value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging for placenta accreta: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 39(11):1958–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Comstock CH, Bronsteen RA (2014) The antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. BJOG 121(2):171–181 (discussion 181–182) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Riteau AS, Tassin M, Chambon G, Le Vaillant C, de Laveaucoupet J, Quéré M-P et al (2014) Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placenta accreta. PLoS ONE 9(4):e94866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jauniaux E, Silver RM (2016) Moving from intra partum to prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a quarter of a century in the making but still a long road to go. BJOG 124(1):96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alfirevic Z, Tang AW, Collins SL, Robson SC, Palacios-Jaraquemada J (2016) Pro forma for ultrasound reporting in suspected abnormally invasive placenta (AIP): an international consensus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47(3):276–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Collins SL, Ashcroft A, Braun T, Calda P, Langhoff-Roos J, Morel O et al (2016) Proposal for standardized ultrasound descriptors of abnormally invasive placenta (AIP). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47(3):271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Merz W, van de Vondel P, Strunk H, Geipel A, Gembruch U (2009) Diagnosis, treatment and application of color Doppler in conservative management of abnormally adherent placenta. Ultraschall Med 30(6):571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schröder L, Pötzsch B, Rühl H, Gembruch U, Merz WM (2015) Tranexamic acid for hyperfibrinolytic hemorrhage during conservative management of placenta percreta. Obstet Gynecol 126(5):1012–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Silver RM, Branch DW (2018) Placenta accreta spectrum. N Engl J Med 378(16):1529–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brockington IF, Oates J, George S, Turner D, Vostanis P, Sullivan M, Loh C, Murdoch C (2001) A screening questionnaire for mother-infant bonding disorders. Arch Womens Ment Health 3(4):133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taylor A, Atkins R, Kumar R, Adams D, Glover V (2005) A new Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale: links with early maternal mood. Arch Womens Ment Health 8(1):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW (1999) Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MDThe PHQ primary care study. JAMA 18:1737–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW (2001) The PHQ-9. J Gen Intern Med 16(9):606–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospital BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations