Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2018, Vol. 45 Issue (5): 731-734    DOI: 10.12891/ceog4257.2018
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
The application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of cesarean scar pregnancies
Hui-Dong Li1, 2, Zhi-Kun Zhang2, Shuang Guo2, Peng-Peng Qu3, *()
1 Clinical College of Central Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China
2 Department of Ultrasound, Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin, China
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin, China
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) could be used as a method for diagnosing cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed medical records, CEUS results, and clinical outcomes of 30 women with CSP, admitted to the Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The women initially underwent transvaginal ultrasound followed by CEUS, using a contrast agent. The CSP lesions were classified into three types: first-trimester gestation sac type, first-trimester mass type, and second-trimester gestation sac type. Results: CEUS showed hyper-enhancement and rapid accumulation of contrast agents in the CSP lesions in the first two types and in the affected muscular layer in the third type, where the placenta accreta was confirmed histopathologically. Conclusion: CEUS can indirectly identify the intrusion of the lesion implanting into the muscular layer and give more diagnostic information before specific treatment for CSP.
Key words:  Cesarean scar pregnancy      Transvaginal ultrasound      Contrast-enhanced ultrasound      Contrast agents      Cesarean delivery     
Published:  10 October 2018     
*Corresponding Author(s):  PENG-PENG QU     E-mail:  qupengpeng78@163.com

Cite this article: 

Hui-Dong Li, Zhi-Kun Zhang, Shuang Guo, Peng-Peng Qu. The application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of cesarean scar pregnancies. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(5): 731-734.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog4257.2018     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2018/V45/I5/731

[1] S. Srisukho, K. Srisupundit, T. Tongsong. Fulfillment of the criteria for diagnosis of cephalo-pelvic disproportion: ACOG guidelines[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 500-504.
[2] G.L. Liu, S.C. He, W.J. Shan, H.Y. Chen. Repetitive hydatidiform mole in the cesarean scar: a case report and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 607-610.
[3] Y. Wang, F.Y. Luo, Y.D. Xia, L. Mei, L. Xie, H.X. Liu. Clinical analysis of 211 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 948-952.
[4] M. Aslam, Areej Ghormulla Alghamdi, Nawal G. Alghamdi, Khushnoor Khan. Monitoring and assessing pre-labor obstetric practicesc using control charts: cesarean delivery cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 570-574.
[5] A. Binet, S. Serriere, B. Morel, C. Blechet, F. Tranquart, F. Perrotin. Intrauterine growth restriction model by hyperthermia: quantitative analysis using Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(4): 586-590.
[6] T.J. Bozorgan, M. Motevasselian, S. Esmaeili, B. AmirNazari, H. Zendedel. Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis following cesarean delivery: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(4): 612-614.
[7] K. Roloff, A. Gray, V.J. Guillermo. Repeat cesarean delivery in the 39-week rule era: outcomes at a community based hospital[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(3): 391-395.
[8] S. Matsubara, H. Takahashi. Cesarean scar pregnancy and uterine artery pseudoaneurysm: preceding or coexisting?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(1): 72-74.
[9] G. Garuti, S. Calabrese, G. Baudino, C. Reato, L. Quirino, M. Di Mario. Hysteroscopic removal of cesarean scar pregnancy after primary therapy with methotrexate: a case series[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(6): 856-861.
[10] A. Kitamura, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Hattori, K. Watanabe, M. Hino, T. Kurahashi, M. Miwa, I. Kamimaki, H. Nakagawa. Evaluation of vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 591-594.
[11] Y. Yamamoto, S. Aoki, M.S. Oba, K. Seki, F. Hirahara. Short umbilical cord length: reflective of adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(2): 216-219.
[12] H. Takahashi, R. Usui, H. Suzuki, Y. Baba, T. Suzuki, T. Kuwata, A. Ohkuchi, S. Matsubara. Uterine-fundal hypoechoic mass: a possible ultrasound sign for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(1): 88-92.
No Suggested Reading articles found!