Conclusions
The incidence of morbidly adherent placenta (MAP) increased from one in 30.000 live births in 1930 to one in 533 live births recently [
2]. Causal factor is obvious endometrial defect related to previous surgeries, dilatation and curettages, previous placenta previa, advanced maternal age, multiparity, Asherman’s syndrome, and submucous leiomyoma [
3]. Primarily, the presence of placenta previa together with afore mentioned factors should raise physician’s notice, since antenatal diagnosis of MAP and planning of the delivery could help to reduce morbidity and mortality [
4]. Obstetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a superior and a feasible diagnostic method in situations where the exact diagnosis could not be reached by sonography [
5]. In this case we did not perform MRI, because ultrasonographic features were vigorously suggestive of MAP. The timing for delivery could reasonably be postponed until 34 to 36 weeks, except for cases with massive vaginal bleeding and suspicion of extreme overgrowth to the adjacent organs.
Most of the cases of twin pregnancies with placenta percreta that were published so far reported uterine rupture at early gestational weeks of pregnancy [
6‐
8]. Our case is interesting as it did reach to 35
th gestational week despite presence of increased placental burden of a twin pregnancy. Meanwhile, according to our best knowledge, there is no other case in the literature that both placentas were morbidly adherent and were remained in situ during the CS.
Detaching or making incision through adhesive placenta gives rise to massive blood loss, and complicates further steps of the surgery. Considering the prevention of hemorrhage, we preferentially performed a fundal rather than a classical incision to the uterus following a midline vertical incision to the skin. Therefore, as the first step of the treatment of MAP, we avoided even minor detachment of the placenta.
The following step in the optimal treatment usually addresses CH as the standard of care for MAP [
2]. After the fetus is delivered the uterus is just taken out while the placenta is still attached. This approach is widely resumed as having the best outcomes. As an alternative approach, here, we abandoned the placenta in situ instead of performing hysterectomy [
3]. Patient’s age, patient’s desire to preserve her uterus, our belief to facilitate surgical outcomes and to decrease need for massive transfusion were the reasons to perform this type of surgery.
In patients with retained placenta, the concern of ‘what to do with the placenta’ arises. As it is theorized that placenta brakes down in time and would be pulled out partially, one can wait for the signs of expulsion of the placenta. Although the thought is reasonable, the journey to the summit is very long and troublesome. Regarding that theory, there are case series reporting favorable outcomes in patients with MAP in singleton pregnancies [
1,
9]. In this case, placenta did not brake down in a long period of time. Moreover, it caused metritis. Therefore, presence of uterine infection necessitated performing emergency surgery at a time before planned surgery for excision of the placental tissues together with metroplasty. Nevertheless, two of our main concerns were reached. Among them, first was to decrease the amount of transferred blood products, and decrease morbidity related to massive transfusion. The second was to decrease co-morbidities related to damaging the adjacent organs during emergency hysterectomy. The other and noble concern, which was to give a chance to preserve and recover the uterus, could not be reached. In such a circumstance, we advocate to ensure an exact control over demographics and medical condition of the patient, the extent of the invasion of placenta, the total volume or amount of the retained placenta, total uterine size comprising placental volume, and the hematoma in the uterine cavity together with the signs of cervical dilatation and expulsion of placenta.
Ligation (LHA) or obliteration (OHA) of the hypogastric arteries were reported to be ineffective if performed without hysterectomy to control major pelvic hemorrhage in up to 60 % of cases of MAP [
4,
10,
11]. As it is known that bilateral LHA is a time consuming and ineffective procedure in patients with MAP, we did not intend to perform prophylactic LHA during CS in this case.
The data regarding the long-term reproductive outcomes after conservative treatment of patients with MAP are limited [
1,
6,
12,
13]. One can assume that the physiology of the endometrium has not been corrected, and the theoretical risk of recurrent MAP rises in this population. However, we could improve implantation site within endometrial cavity by repairing the defective zone related to previous CSs owing to a popular theory of implantation of the embryo directly on the endomyometrial junction [
14]. Despite this blurred picture and the increased risk of recurrent MAP, a chance to conceive should be considered in meticulously selected cases such as very young parturients.
In conclusion, leaving the placenta in situ seems to be a logical alternative to CH in patients with MAP. However, the surgeon should be aware of infectious, hemorrhagic, and psychological complications related to retained placenta. In presence of MAP with DC pregnancy, it appears to increase risk of maternal infection, and increase maternal morbidity. Therefore, we advocate the idea that uterine conservation approach should be personalized with meticulous patient selection [
15].
Competing interests
We declare that we have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
MAA, managed the patient, collected the patient’s data and drafted the manuscript. FOA, participated in the patient management, made the histopathologic evaluation, and made substantial contributions in drafting and revising the manuscript. BCD participated in management of the patient and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.