3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk of Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder After Prior Non–Cesarean Delivery Uterine Surgery : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      review-article
      , MD, , MD, , MD, , MD, , MD, , MD, , MD, , MD , , MD , , MD, , MD, , MD , , MD
      Obstetrics and Gynecology
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Individuals with prior non–cesarean uterine surgeries have been found to have significantly increased odds for development of placenta accreta spectrum disorder in subsequent pregnancies; the risk varies depending on the type of uterine surgery.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE:

          To evaluate the association between previous non–cesarean uterine surgery and placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) in subsequent pregnancies.

          DATA SOURCES:

          PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wan-fang Database were searched from inception to April 2024, supplemented by manual searches.

          METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION:

          Studies included prospective, retrospective cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies involving pregnant women diagnosed with PAS and reporting at least one risk factor associated with previous uterine surgery.

          TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS:

          Two authors independently screened potentially eligible studies and extracted data. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The pooled odds ratios (ORs), adjusted ORs, and their 95% CIs were estimated with fixed- or random-effects models if the heterogeneity ( I 2) was high. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for potential study bias. The main measures were myomectomy, uterine artery embolization, dilatation and curettage, hysteroscopic adhesiolysis, abortion, endometrial ablation, and operative hysteroscopy. A total of 38 studies involving 7,353,177 participants were included in the systematic review, with an overall prevalence of PAS of 0.16%, and 31 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Prior non–cesarean uterine surgeries were associated with PAS in subsequent pregnancy (pooled OR 2.29, 95% CI, 1.43–3.68). Distinct associations between specific uterine surgery and PAS included myomectomy (OR 2.29, 95% CI, 1.77–2.97), uterine artery embolization (OR 43.16, 95% CI, 20.50–90.88), dilatation and curettage (OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.78–2.93), hysteroscopic adhesiolysis (OR 7.72, 95% CI, 4.10–14.53), abortion (OR 1.65, 95% CI, 1.43–1.92), endometrial ablation (OR 20.26, 95% CI, 17.15–23.93), and operative hysteroscopy (OR 3.10, 95% CI, 1.86–5.18).

          CONCLUSION:

          Prior non–cesarean uterine surgery is associated with a significantly increased odds for development of PAS in subsequent pregnancy, and the risk varies depending on the types of uterine surgery.

          SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:

          PROSPERO: CRD42024552210.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Obstet Gynecol
                Obstet Gynecol
                ong
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0029-7844
                1873-233X
                June 2025
                06 February 2025
                : 145
                : 6
                : 628-638
                Affiliations
                Department of Obstetrics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Major Obstetric Diseases, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Higher Education Joint Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Third Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Lili Du, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China; lilidugysy@ 123456gzhmu.edu.cn ; and Dunjin Chen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Third Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China; gzdrchen@ 123456gzhmu.edu.cn .
                Article
                ONG-24-1573 00007
                10.1097/AOG.0000000000005824
                12068551
                39913920
                884e9879-8d8e-4ccf-80e1-15bdf4872067
                Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 30 August 2024
                : 10 November 2024
                : 14 November 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Natural Key R&D Program of China
                Award ID: 2022YFC2704503
                Award Recipient : Lili Du
                Funded by: Natural Key R&D Program of China
                Award ID: 2022YFC2704501
                Award Recipient : Dunjin Chen
                Funded by: General Program of Guangdong Province Natural Science Foundation
                Award ID: 2023A1515110989
                Award Recipient : Lizi Zhang
                Categories
                Reviews
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log