Clinical diagnostic value and analysis of MRI combined with ultrasound in prenatal pernicious placenta previa with placenta accreta

Abstract

Background: Placenta previa is one dangerous disease which threatens the health of pregnant women and their fetuses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of ultrasound combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screening for placenta previa complicated by placenta accreta.Methods: Seventy patients with abnormal fetal position admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to January 2020 were selected for the study. Patients were diagnosed by ultrasound alone, MRI alone, and ultrasound combined with MRI. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and false positive and negative diagnosis rates were evaluated against the postoperative pathological examinations of the patients.Results: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and false negative rate for ultrasound combined with MRI were 86.27%, 97.78% and 72.00%, respectively. These results were significantly superior to those of MRI or ultrasound alone (P<0.05). The specificity and false positive rate for ultrasound combined with MRI were 13.73% and 5.26%, respectively, which were not significantly different from those for MRI or ultrasound alone (P>0.05).Conclusions: Compared with ultrasound or MRI alone, ultrasound combined with MRI has higher accuracy and sensitivity in the diagnosis of placenta previa with placenta accreta, along with lower false positive diagnosis rates. These findings are clinically important for improving the diagnostic efficiency.

Diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum in high‐risk women using ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Following a review of titles and abstracts, 51 studies were included for full-text analysis. Finally, 17 studies, which included 1301 participants at high risk for PAS, met all the inclusion criteria and were selected for data extraction and meta-analysis (Figure 1) [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] .…”

“…Elhawary (2013) 30 Hashem (2016) 37 Kumar (2017) 38 Lim (2011) 24 Abdel Magied (2018) 34 Nawab (2017) 32 Xia (2020a) 28 Ayati (2017) 39 Lin (2017) 25 Rezk (2016) 36 Guo (2021) 40 Riteau (2014) 26 Xia (2020b) 28 Algebally (2014) 31 Budorick (2017) 27 Mansour (2011) 29 Tables S2 and S3 for ultrasound and MRI, respectively.…”

“…Peker (2013) 35 Alici Davutoglu (2018) 33 Elhawary (2013) 30 Hashem (2016) 37 Kumar (2017) 38 Lim (2011) 24 Abdel Magied (2018) 34 Nawab (2017) 32 Xia (2020a) 28 Ayati (2017) 39 Lin (2017) 25 Rezk (2014) 36 Guo (2021) 40 Riteau (2014) 26 Xia (2020b) 28 Algebally (2014) 31 Budorick (2017) 27 Mansour (2011) 29 0.95 (0.75-1.00) the diagnosis of PAS. The meta-analysis in this report encompassed over 1300 women who underwent both ultrasound and MRI assessments.…”

Deep Learning Algorithm-Based Ultrasound Image Information in Diagnosis and Treatment of Pernicious Placenta Previa

“…Prenatal diagnosis of PPP is easier to make by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but whether it is associated with placenta accreta has been the focus and difficulty of clinical diagnosis [ 10 ]. As a noninvasive and reproducible examination, ultrasound has become the primary examination method for prenatal diagnosis of PPP and placenta accreta [ 11 ].…”

How Could Nanomedicine Improve the Safety of Contrast Agents for MRI during Pregnancy?

“…Ultrasound visualization of this organ is also difficult in cases of posteriorly implanted placenta, where the latter is attached to the back wall of the uterus near the spine. In these situations, additional MRI imaging can be used [25]. The diagnosis of adhesion disorders is essential to plan the surgical management, contain the extent of possible hemorrhage at the moment of delivery, and detect eventual perforation of adjacent organs in case of percreta [14,16,21,26].…”