Placental mesenchymal dysplasia
22 year old primi para woman presented, for routine ultrasound. No H/o hyperemesis gravidarum. No H/o bleeding PV.
PLACENTAL MESENCHYMAL DYSPLASIA
Loading Stack -
0 images remaining
A single viable fetus was seen in cephalic presentation, with average gestational age of 20 weeks and 2 days. No gross congenital anomaly was seen.
A normal placenta was seen along the anterior wall of the uterus, lying in upper segment. .
A well defined discoid, echogenic, vesicular lesion, approximately measuring 145 mm x 92 mm, interspersed with multiple small cysts was seen along the posterior wall of the uterus ( hydatidiform mole like picture). Peripheral vascularity was seen in the lesion, on color Doppler interrogation. However, no internal vascularity was evident. The lesion appeared to be continuous with the normal placenta, postero superiorly.
The myometrium- lesion interface was well defined & no myometrial invasion was seen.
Both ovaries were normal. No significant follicle / cyst was seen in either of the ovaries.
Placental mesenchymal dysplasia is a benign condition that can be confused with a molar pregnancy by ultrasound scanning and gross examination. Unlike Molar pregnancy, the incidence of PMD is rare and has a reported incidence of 0.02% .
It is a rare placental anomaly characterized by placentomegaly and grapelike vesicles resembling molar pregnancy. PMD usually features a normal fetus. It is also called pseudo-partial mole. But fetal IUGR & IUD are quite common with PMD.
Distinguishing PMD from its mimics, especially molar pregnancy is important for preventing unnecessary termination of pregnancy.
- Ulker V, Aslan H, Gedikbasi A et-al. Placental mesenchymal dysplasia: a rare clinicopathologic entity confused with molar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33 (3): 246-9. doi:10.3109/01443615.2012.745491 - Pubmed citation
- Nayeri UA, West AB, Grossetta Nardini HK et-al. Systematic review of sonographic findings of placental mesenchymal dysplasia and subsequent pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41 (4): 366-74. doi:10.1002/uog.12359 - Pubmed citation