Agree this card is somewhat misleading as extra already explains; think it would be sufficient to state "C-section if placenta previa persists* " in Text and put an * on the second sentence in extra
IMO I think this isnāt necessary. Once itās implanted it is where it will be. Just in early US, it is harder to tell if it is actually covering the cervix. IMO the more accurate addition would be to the dx, not the tx section.
How do you manage placenta previa?
Diagnose: {{c1::ultrasound (transverse lie) at ā¼ 32 weeks}}
Treat: {{c1::C-section}}
How its been explained to me (and how it makes sense) is prior to that time it really was only a āpotential placenta previaā and calling it that is more of a misnomer which is why you recheck bc it almost always isnāt over the cervix at later checks.
Ah interesting, Iāve had it explained as the placenta moreso just evolves over the course of the pregnancy and that findings on earlier U/S are true findings but tend to resolve before term. This is the way I read the UTD article as well, though I just skimmed the monitoring section.
I was just suggesting we keep the diagnosis part simple as is and clarify treatment as just āC-section, if placenta previa persistsā without the other bit added by this user. I donāt think Iāve seen questions that rely on us knowing the specific weeks for monitoring (though Iāve only done about 100 OBGYN Qs so far).
[[Found a more specific article/section re: evolution of placenta over time]]
I agree, that āC-section, if placenta previa persistsā should be enough. But I will be that guy and ask why there is a ātransverse lieā I feel like itās out of place and I couldnāt find it anywhere in AMBOSS or UW
How do you manage placenta previa?
Diagnose: {{c1::ultrasound}}
Treat: {{c1::C-section, if placenta previa persists}}