KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2020 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of the Relationship Between Placental Thickness and Obstetric Doppler Parameters During the Second Trimester

Emine AYDIN
Ayça Nazlı BULUT
Sayfa
17–20
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no relationship between the placental thickness and obstetric Doppler parameters in this study, we suggest that they are likely important factors and their significance should be evaluated in future studies.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a relationship between placental thickness and the umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler evaluation in the second trimester.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:STUDY DESIGN: The placental thickness and the umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler evaluations were recorded by a single operator for patients who were admitted for an obstetric follow-up or fetal anatomy screening at 18-28 gestational weeks.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no relationship between the placental thickness and obstetric Doppler parameters in this study, we suggest that they are likely important factors and their significance should be evaluated in future studies.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a relationship between placental thickness and the umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler evaluation in the second trimester. STUDY DESIGN: The placental thickness and the umbilical artery and uterine artery Doppler evaluations were recorded by a single operator for patients who were admitted for an obstetric follow-up or fetal anatomy screening at 18-28 gestational weeks. The relation between these variables was investigated by evaluating the patients only once. RESULTS: In our study, the mean placental thickness was 31.7 (SD±8.01) mm. The umbilical artery Doppler parameters did not correlate with the placental thickness. The uterine artery Doppler systolic/ diastolic velocity, Pulsatility index and Resistance index values positively correlated with the placental thickness. However, these correlations were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no relationship between the placental thickness and obstetric Doppler parameters in this study, we suggest that they are likely important factors and their significance should be evaluated in future studies.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AYDIN, E., BULUT, A. N. (2020). Evaluation of the Relationship Between Placental Thickness and Obstetric Doppler Parameters During the Second Trimester. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1, 17–20. https://ajindex.com/articles/157150

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Thame M, Osmond C, Wilks R, Bennett FI, Forrester TE. Second-trimester placental volume and infant size at birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(2):279-83
  2. Tongsong T, Boonyanurak P. Placental thickness in the first half of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 2004;32(5):231-4
  3. Nordenvall M, Ullberg U, Laurin J, Lingman G, Sandstedt B, Ulmsten U. Placental morphology in relation to umbilical artery blood velocity waveforms. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;40(3):179-90
  4. Gilio DB, Miranda Correa RR, De Oliveira Guimarães CS, Peres LC, Marques Salge AK, Cavellani CL, et al. Analysis of placenta vascularization in patients with uterine altered artery Doppler flow velocity exams. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35(4):648-53
  5. Lee AJ, Bethune M, Hıscock RJ. Placental thickness in the second trimester: a pilot study to determine the normal range. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(2):213-8
  6. Agwuna KK, Eze CU, Ukoha PO, Umeh UA. Relationship between sonographic placental thickness and gestational age in normal singleton fetuses in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2016;6 (6):335-40
  7. Mital P, Hooja N, Mehndiratta K. Placental thickness. A sonographic parameter for estimating gestational age of the fetus. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2002;12(4):553-4
  8. Hanretty KP. Obstetrics Illustrated. 6th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003. p. 9-12
  9. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal biparietal diameter: Rational choice of plane of section for sonographic measurement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982; 138(5):871-4
  10. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(1):35-43
  11. Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;82(9):689-97
  12. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(2):132-5
  13. Bhide A, Acharya G, Bilardo CM, Brezinka C, Cafici D, Hernandez-Andrade E, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: use of Doppler ultrasonography in obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(2):233-9
  14. Milligan N, Rowden M, Wright E, Melamed N, Lee YM, Windrim RC, et al. Two-dimensional sonographic assessment of maximum placental length and thickness in the second trimester: a reproducibility study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(14):1653-9
  15. Elchalal U, Ezra Y, Levi Y, Bar-Oz B, Yanai N, Intrator O, et al