Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2004; 21(6): 325-328
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-831882
Copyright © 2004 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Placental Findings in Low-Risk, Singleton, Term Pregnancies after Uncomplicated Deliveries

Gary Ventolini1 , Ralph Samlowski2 , Dan L. Hood3
  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio
  • 2Department of Family Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Huntsville Campus, Birmingham, Alabama
  • 3Clinical and Pathology Laboratories, Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, Ohio
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 August 2004 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Should all placentas be sent to pathology for examination after delivery room triage? A cohort of 88 placentas was prospectively obtained and examined from low-risk, singleton, term pregnancies after uneventful delivery. All patients had a normal prenatal testing and anatomy ultrasound. Fifty-one placentas (58%) were normal. Thirty-seven of the placental cohort (42%) had abnormal findings. Thirteen of the abnormal placentas (35.1%) showed pathology unassociated with fetal compromise. Twenty-four of the placentas (27.3% of the total cohort and 64.9% of the abnormal placentas) showed findings associated with fetal compromise. The most common pathologies were marginal cord insertion, chorioamnionitis, and abruption. Routine placental examination is not indicated, according to our data, in low-risk, singleton, and term pregnancy unless the placenta is determined to be abnormal at delivery examination.

KEYWORDS

Low-risk pregnancies - placental findings - placental pathology

REFERENCES

  • 1 College of American Pathologist . Conference XIX on the Examination of the Placenta: report of the Working Group on Indications for Placental Examination.  Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;  115 660-721
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Langston C, Kaplan C, Macpherson T et al.. Practice guidelines for examination of the placenta.  Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;  121 449-476
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Altshuler G. A conceptual approach to placental pathology and pregnancy outcome.  Semin Diag Pathol. 1993;  10 204-221
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sun C C, Revell V O, Belli A J, Viscardi R M. Discrepancy in pathologic diagnosis of placental lesions.  Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;  126 706-709
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Yetter J F. Examination of the placenta.  Am Fam Phys. 1998;  57 1045-1054
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Altshuler G. The role of the placenta in perinatal pathology (revised).  Pediatr Pathol. 1996;  6 207-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Driscoll S G. Placental examination in a clinical setting.  Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;  115 668-671
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Salafia C M, Vintzileos A M. Why all placentas should be examined by a pathologist in 1990.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;  163 1282-1293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 ACOG Guidelines for Perinatal Care. 2nd ed. Elk Grove Village, IL; American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988
    Google Scholar

Gary VentoliniM.D. 

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wright State University

128 E. Apple Street, CHE 3800

Dayton, OH 45409-2793

      >