A prospective cohort study: can advanced ultrasonography replace magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placental adhesion disorders?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAri, Sabahattin Anil
dc.contributor.authorSuner, Asli
dc.contributor.authorSenkaya, Ayse Rabia
dc.contributor.authorOkmen, Firat
dc.contributor.authorAkdemir, Ali
dc.contributor.authorErgenoglu, Ahmet Mete
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-22T19:47:19Z
dc.date.available2023-03-22T19:47:19Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentBelirleneceken_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To define and compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography (USG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the placental adhesive disorder (PAD). Methods: A prospective study was conducted between January 2019 and February 2020 in a tertiary referral university hospital. A total of 115 placenta previa cases were included in the study during the third trimester of gestation. USG examination was performed, and the placenta was scanned in a systematic manner using gray-scale ultrasound, color Doppler flow mapping, and 3-D imaging for each participant. Thereafter, all participants underwent an MRI examination. USG and MRI findings were compared with histopathological findings. Results: Loss of the retroplacental sonolucent zone (71% [95% CI 47-88]) and an irregular retroplacental sonolucent zone (71% [95% CI 47-88]) were the most sensitive USG parameters. For MRI, the uterine bulging parameter was the most sensitive (60% [95% CI 36-80]) and specific (91% [95% CI 83-96]) findings, and it had the highest accuracy rate (85% [95% CI 77-91]). Overall, the USG sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were 77% (95% CI 54-92), 87% (95% CI 79-93), and 85% (95% CI 77-91), respectively. The MRI sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates for all participants were 81% (95% CI 59-94), 85% (95% CI 76-92), and 84% (95% CI 76-90), respectively. Conclusions: In the diagnosis of PAD, the specificity and accuracy of USG are higher than that of MRI, whereas the sensitivity of MRI is better than that of USG.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1515/jpm-2022-0407
dc.identifier.issn0300-5577
dc.identifier.issn1619-3997
dc.identifier.pmid36607899en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85146188364en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2022-0407
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14034/622
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000909674200001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWalter De Gruyter Gmbhen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal Of Perinatal Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectmagnetic resonance imagingen_US
dc.subjectobstetrics diagnosisen_US
dc.subjectobstetrics hemorrhageen_US
dc.subjectplacenta previaen_US
dc.subjectplacental adhesive disordersen_US
dc.subjectultrasonographyen_US
dc.subjectInvasive Placentationen_US
dc.subjectAntenatal Diagnosisen_US
dc.subjectAccreta Spectrumen_US
dc.subjectManagementen_US
dc.subjectAccuracyen_US
dc.subjectSonographyen_US
dc.subjectUltrasounden_US
dc.subjectMrien_US
dc.titleA prospective cohort study: can advanced ultrasonography replace magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placental adhesion disorders?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu