ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2021
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of PABO above or below the ovarian artery during cesarean delivery in patients with coexisting placenta accreta and placenta previa.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful Resuscitation of a Patient with Pernicious Placenta Previa and Placenta Accrete Presenting with Massive Life-Threatening Hemorrhage During Cesarean Section: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2025Article
- Aortic balloon occlusion for placenta accreta spectrum: the higher, the better?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the effect of ovarian arteries on the use of prophylactic abdominal aortic balloon occlusion (PABO) in patients with coexisting placenta accreta and placenta previa.
methodsThirty-two pregnant women with coexisting placenta accreta and placenta previa treated with PABO in our hospital during 2013-2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: one with infra-renal abdominal aortic balloon occlusion above the ovarian artery (Group A, n = 15) and the other with occlusion below the ovarian artery (Group B, n = 17). Medical records and relevant imaging of all patients were reviewed. All Cesarean deliveries were scheduled and we decided to perform hysterectomy based on the surgical findings.
resultsPatients in both groups were similar in terms of age, gravidity history, and status of placenta. Regarding their outcomes, estimated blood loss was not significantly different in both groups, although it was lower in Group B than in Group A (3949.5 vs. 4333.8 ml). The other tested parameters did not show any difference. The uterus was preserved in 13 (41%) patients. No access-related or balloon occlusion-related complications occurred in either group.
conclusionsPABO was safe. However, the balloon location (above or below the ovarian arteries) did not influence the outcomes. Further evaluation and prospective studies are required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of balloon occlusion above or below the ovarian artery in patients with coexisting placenta accreta and placenta previa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.