Prophylactic ureteral stent placement for the prevention of genitourinary tract injury during hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic ureteral stent placement for the prevention of genitourinary tract injury at the time of cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum. The secondary objectives were to assess mean blood loss, operative time, number of packed red blood cells transfused, and rates of urinary tract infection among patients undergoing cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum with and without prophylactic ureteral stent placement. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to February 2022 to December 2022. The protocol for this review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews before data collection (registration number: CRD42022372817). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies that examined differences in the rate of genitourinary tract injury among women undergoing cesarean hysterectomy for prenatally suspected placenta accreta spectrum with and without placement of prophylactic ureteral stents were included. Genitourinary injury was defined as cystotomy, ureteral injury, and/or bladder fistula. Cases of both intentional and unintentional genitourinary injuries were included in the analysis. METHODS: For all studies meeting the inclusion criteria, the following data were extracted: number of included patients, maternal demographic information, obstetrical history, type of invasive placentation, placement of stents (yes or no), type of stent placed, blood loss, operative time, genitourinary tract injury, and urinary tract infection. Pooled data analysis was completed using the Review Manager (version 5.3; Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). The summary measures were reported as summary relative risk or as summary mean difference. The quality and risk of biases of the included studies were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Overall, 9 studies, including 848 patients, fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Moreover, 523 patients (61.7%) had prophylactic ureteral stents placed, and 325 patients (38.3%) did not. Genitourinary injury occurred in 138 of 523 patients (26.4%) in the ureteral stent group vs 83 of 325 patients (25.5%) in the no ureteral stent group (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.20). The mean number of packed red blood cells transfused did not differ between the 2 groups. The pooled analysis demonstrated decreased blood loss among patients who received prophylactic ureteral stents, with a mean difference of 392 mL (95% confidence interval, 52.74-738.13). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the rates of genitourinary tract injury with the use of prophylactic ureteral stent placement among cases of prenatally suspected placenta accreta spectrum undergoing cesarean hysterectomy.

Prophylactic Ureteral Stent Placement and Urinary Injury During Hysterectomy for Placenta Accreta Spectrum.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between prophylactic ureteral stent placement at the time of hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum and genitourinary injury. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with placenta accreta spectrum who underwent hysterectomy at two referral centers from 2001 to 2021. The exposure was prophylactic ureteral stent placement. The primary outcome, genitourinary injury, was a composite of bladder injury, ureteral injury, or vesicovaginal fistula. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome. We evaluated differences between groups using χ 2 and t test. To evaluate differences in the primary outcome, we reported odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) using multivariable logistic regression analyses to control for potential confounding variables. We used a Cochran-Armitage χ 2 trend test to evaluate difference in stent use and injury over time. RESULTS: In total, 236 patients were included. Prophylactic ureteral stents were used in 156 surgeries (66%). Overall, genitourinary injury occurred less frequently in the stent group compared with the no stent group (28% vs 51%, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21-0.65). This association persisted after controlling for urgency of delivery, three or more prior cesarean deliveries, and whether a gynecologic oncologist was present (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14-0.52). Unintentional bladder injury occurred less frequently in the stent group compared with the no stent group (13% vs 25%, P =.018), as did ureteral injury (2% vs 9%, P =.019). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic ureteral stent placement was associated with a decreased risk of genitourinary injury during hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum.

Association between short interpregnancy interval and placenta accreta spectrum.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of placenta accreta spectrum is increasing in parallel with the growing number of cesarean deliveries performed. A shorter interpregnancy interval following cesarean delivery may prevent adequate scar healing, which could impact the risk of placenta accreta spectrum. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the association between short interpregnancy intervals and placenta accreta spectrum. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients at risk for placenta accreta spectrum at a tertiary academic center between 2002 and 2020. Our cohort was defined as pregnant individuals at risk for placenta accreta spectrum meeting the following criteria: placenta previa with previous cesarean delivery and/or uterine surgery, anterior low-lying placenta with previous cesarean delivery and/or uterine surgery, ≥3 previous cesarean deliveries, or any previous cesarean delivery with sonographic findings suspicious for placenta accreta spectrum. The primary outcome was surgically or histopathologically confirmed placenta accreta spectrum. Short interpregnancy interval was defined as <18 completed months from previous delivery and last menstrual period of the index pregnancy. Univariable analyses were performed with chi-square and Student's t-test, as appropriate, and Kruskal-Wallis for nonparametric variables. The unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were calculated using multivariate logistic regression models. Covariates were selected if P<.2 in univariable analyses or defined a priori as clinically meaningful. The final models were derived using reverse stepwise selection of variables. We used Stata Statistical Software, version 15 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) to perform descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 262 patients at risk of placenta accreta spectrum with complete records, 112 (42.7%) had placenta accreta spectrum. Pregnant individuals with short interpregnancy intervals of <18 months were no more likely than those with optimal interpregnancy intervals to have previa (58% [46/80] vs 46% [84/182]; P=.09) or placenta accreta spectrum (49% [39/80] vs 40% [73/182]; P=.19). Short interpregnancy interval of <18 months was not associated with placenta accreta spectrum (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.80). This association did not change when adjusting for previa and number of previous cesarean deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-2.15). In a secondary analysis, an interpregnancy interval of <12 months was also not associated with placenta accreta spectrum (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-1.56; adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-1.27). CONCLUSION: In patients at risk for placenta accreta spectrum, short interpregnancy intervals of <18 months or <12 months were not associated with placenta accreta spectrum, even when controlling for number of previous cesarean deliveries and previa. Short interpregnancy interval is not likely to be an important modifiable independent risk factor for placenta accreta spectrum.