Examination of the Placenta

  • Kurt Benirschke
  • Peter Kaufmann

Abstract

Most placentas are normal, as are most babies. Therefore, an examination of all placentas may not be warranted although this has been repeatedly advocated. Practical guidelines, including indications for the examination, have been published by the College of American Pathologists (Langston et al., 1997). This reference describes in tabular form the major abnormalities and their association with clinical features. Booth et al. (1997) inquired what reasons constituted the submission of a placenta for examination and found, regrettably, that it was cesarean section delivery. This is hardly a good reason, as we show here. A large number of surgical deliveries are repeat sections and have little impact on perinatal problems for which placental examination might be useful. Altshuler and Hyde (1996), on the other hand, found that 92% of placentas for which an examination was requested by the obstetrician or neonatologist had relevant pathology. Salafia and Vintzileos (1990) made a strong plea for the study of all placentas by pathologists. We concur with this view, as the sporadic examination does not provide sufficient training for young pathologists and it does not allow the “routine” pathologist to obtain sufficient background knowledge as to what constitutes a truly normal placenta.

Keywords

Umbilical Cord Placental Tissue Intervillous Space Normal Placenta Single Umbilical Artery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACOG: Placental Pathology. Committee Opinion. Bull. Am. Coll. Obstet. Gynecol. 102: 1–2, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Altshuler, G. and Hyde, S.: Fusobacteria: an important cause of chorioamnionitis. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 109: 739–743, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Altshuler, G. and Hyde, S.: Clinicopathologic implications of placental pathology. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 39: 549–570, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacsich, P. and Smout, C.F.V.: Some observations on the foetal vessels of the human placenta with an account of the corrosion technique. J. Anat. 72: 358–364, 1938.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartholomew, R.A., Colvin, E.D., Grimes, W.H., Fish, J.S., Lester, W.M. and Galloway, W.H.: Criteria by which toxemia of pregnancy may be diagnosed from unlabeled formalinfixed placentas. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 82: 277–290, 1961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, V. and Bleyl, U.: Placentarzotte bei Schwangerschaftstoxicose und fetaler Erythroblastose im fluorescenzmikroskopischen Bilde. Virchows Arch. Pathol. Anat. 334: 516–527, 1961.Google Scholar
  7. Bejar, R., Wozniak, P, Allard, M., Benirschke, K., Vaucher, Y., Coen, R., Berry, C., Schragg, P., Villegas, I. and Resnik, R.: Antenatal origin of neurologic damage in newborn infants. I. Preterm Infants. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 159: 357–363, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. Benirschke, K.: Examination of the placenta. Obstet. Gynecol. 18: 309–333, 1961a.Google Scholar
  9. Benirschke, K.: Twin placenta and perinatal mortality. N.Y. State J. Med. 61:1499` 1508, 1961b.Google Scholar
  10. Boe, E: Studies on vascularization of the human placenta. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. (Suppl. 5 ) 32: 1–92, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booth, V.J., Nelson, K.B., Dambrosia, J.M. and Grether, J.K.: What factors influence whether placentas are submitted for pathologic examination ? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 176: 567–571, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouw, G.M., Stolte, L.A.M., Baak, J.P.A. and Oort, J.: Quantita-Google Scholar
  13. tive morphology of the placenta. 1. Standardization of sam-Google Scholar
  14. pling. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 6:325–331,1976. Crawford, J.M.: Vascular anatomy of the human placenta. Am.Google Scholar
  15. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 84:1543–1567,1962. Driscoll, S.G.: Choriocarcinoma: an “incidental finding” within a term placenta. Obstet. Gynecol. 21: 96–101, 1963.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, C.C., Garrett, W. and Kossoff, G.: Placental aging monitored by gray scale echography. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 124: 483–488, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, H.: Pathology of the Placenta. 2nd Ed. Saunders, London, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. Frank, H.G., Malekzadeh, F., Kertschanska, S., Crescimanno, C., Castellucci, M., Lang, I., Desoye, G. and Kaufmann, P.: Immunohistochemistry of two different types of placental fibrinoid. Acta Anat. 150: 55–68, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fritschek, F.: Über “leere” Placentarhohlräume. Anat. Anz. 64: 65–73, 1927.Google Scholar
  20. Fujikura, T.: Placental calcification and maternal age. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 87: 41–45, 1963a.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fujikura, T.: Placental calcification and seasonal difference. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 87: 46–47, 1963b.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Geller, H.F.: Über die Bedeutung des subchorialen Fibrinstreifens in der menschlichen Placenta. Arch. Gynäkol. 192: 1–6, 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gruenwald, P.: Examination of the placenta by the pathologist. Arch. Pathol. 77: 41–46, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gruenwald, P. and Minh, H.N.: Evaluation of body and organ weights in perinatal pathology. II. Weight of body and placenta of surviving and of autopsied infants. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 82: 312–319, 1961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Heifetz, S.A.: Single umbilical artery. A statistical analysis of 237 autopsy cases and review of the literature. Perspect. Pediatr. Pathol. 8: 345–378, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hyrtl, J.: Die Blutgefässe der Menschlichen Nachgeburt unter Normalen und Abnormen Verhältnissen. Braumüller, Vienna, 1870.Google Scholar
  27. Jauniaux, E. and Campbell, S.: Ultrasonographic assessment of placental abnormalities. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 163: 1650–1658, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeacock, M.K., Scott, J. and Plester, J.A.: Calcium content of the human placenta. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 87: 34–40, 1963.Google Scholar
  29. Jiricka, Z. and Preslickova, M.: The effect of fixation on stain- ing of placental tissue. Z. Versuchstierkd. 16:127–130,1974. Kaufmann, P.: Der osmotische Effekt der Fixation auf die Pla-Google Scholar
  30. centastruktur. Verh. Anat. Ges. 74: 351–352, 1980.Google Scholar
  31. Kaufmann, P Influence of ischemia and artificial perfusion on placental ultrastructure and morphometry. Contrib. Gynecol. Obstet. 13:18–26, 1985.Google Scholar
  32. Langston, C., Kaplan, C., MacPherson, T., Manci, E., Peevy, K., Clark, B., Murtagh, C., Cox, S. and Glenn, G.: Practice guidelines for examination of the placenta. Developed by the placental pathology practice guideline development task force of the College of American Pathologists. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 121: 449–476, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Las Heras, J., Micheli, V. and Kakarieka, E.: Placental pathology in perinatal deaths (abstract 26). Mod. Pathol. 7 (1): 5P, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. Lucas, A., Christofides, N.D., Adran, T.E., Bloom, S.R. and Aynsley-Green, A.: Fetal distress, meconium, and motilin. Lancet 1: 718, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, P.W., Coen, R.W. and Benirschke, K.: Dating the time interval from meconium passage to birth. Obstet. Gynecol. 66: 459–462, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Moessinger, A.C., Blanc, W.A., Marone, P.A. and Polsen, D.C.: Umbilical cord length as an index of fetal activity: experimental study and clinical implications. Pediatr. Res. 16: 109–112, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naeye, R.L.: Maternal floor infarction. Hum. Pathol. 16: 823–828, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naeye, R.L.: Functionally important disorders of the placenta, umbilical cord, and fetal membranes. Hum. Pathol. 18: 680–691, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Panigel, M.: Placental perfusion experiments. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 84:1664–1683,1962 Google Scholar
  40. Priman, J A note on the anastomosis of the umbilical arteries. Anat. Rec. 134:1–5,1959.Google Scholar
  41. Pritchard, J.A., MacDonald, P.C. and Gant, N.F.: Williams Obstetrics 17th Ed. Appleton Century Crofts, Norwalk, CT, 1985.Google Scholar
  42. Reece, E.A., Scioscia, A.L., Pinter, E., Hobbins, J C., Green, J., Mahoney, M.J. and Naftolin, F.: Prognostic significance of the human yolk sac assessed by ultrasonography. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 159:1191–1194, 1988 Google Scholar
  43. Salafia, C.M. and Vintzileos, A.M.: Why all placentas should be examined by a pathologist in 1990. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 163:1282–1293,1990. [See discussion, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 165:783–784,1991.]Google Scholar
  44. Schatz, F.: Die Gefässverbindungen der Placentakreisläufe einiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Folgen. Arch. Gynäkol. 27:1–72, 1886.Google Scholar
  45. Schremmer, B.-N.: Gewichtsveränderungen verschiedener Gewebe nach Formalinfixierung. Frankf. Z. Pathol. 77: 299–304, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Snoeck, J Le Placenta Humain. Masson & Cie, Paris, 1958..Torpin, R. and Hart, B.E: Placenta bilobata. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 42:38–49,1941.Google Scholar
  47. Travers, H. and Schmidt, W.A.: College of American Pathologists Conference XIX on the Examination of the Placenta. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 115:660–731, 1991. [A composite of many articles by numerous authors.]Google Scholar
  48. Voigt, S., Kaufmann, E, and Schweikhart, G.: Zur Abgrenzung normaler, artefizieller und pathologischer Strukturen in reifen menschlichen Plazentazotten. II. Morphometrische Untersuchungen zum Einfluss des Fixationsmodus. Arch. Gynäkol. 226: 347–362, 1978.Google Scholar
  49. Walker, J.: Weight of the human fetus and of its placenta. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 19: 39–40, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zeek, P.M. and Assali, N.S.: Vascular changes in the decidua associated with eclamptogenic toxemia of pregnancy. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 20: 1099–1109, 1950.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt Benirschke
    • 1
  • Peter Kaufmann
    • 2
  1. 1.University Medical CenterUniversity of California, San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Institut für Anatomie der Medizinischen FakultätRheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations