Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2019, Vol. 46 Issue (6): 948-952    DOI: 10.12891/ceog5013.2019
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Clinical analysis of 211 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy
Y. Wang1, F.Y. Luo1, Y.D. Xia1, L. Mei1, L. Xie1, H.X. Liu1, *()
1Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chengdu, China
Download:  PDF(351KB)  ( 206 ) Full text   ( 13 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

Objective: To investigate the rational choice of early diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). M ethods: The clinical data, including age, gravidity, time to previous cesarean section, first symptom, auxiliary examination, regimen, and therapeutic outcomes, of 211 patients with CSP admitted to Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from March 2016 to February 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Of the 211 patients, 165 patients were first diagnosed with CSP in this hospital, and eight of them (4.85%) were misdiagnosed; 46 patients were referred to thus hospital by physicians in other hospitals, and 21 of them (45.65%) were misdiagnosed. After admission, transvaginal color Doppler sonography was performed with a blood β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) study to confirm the diagnosis. According to the surgical approaches, 211 patients were divided into six groups: group A: hysteroscopy group (141 patients), group B: uterine artery embolization (UAE) plus hysteroscopy group (38 patients), group C: hysteroscopy plus laparoscopy group (seven patients), group D: UAE with hysteroscopy plus laparoscopy group (six patients), group E: laparotomy group (12 patients), and group F: uterine evacuation group (seven patients). There were no significant differences in age, number of cesarean sections, time from previous cesarean section, days of the missed period, diameter of the gestational sac, or blood β-hCG levels among the six groups (p > 0.05). However, the cure rate, complication rate, mean intraoperative blood loss, mean operative time, mean length of hospital stay, and mean medical cost were all statistically significant between the six groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Women who have a history of cesarean section should be vigilant and undergo a transvaginal ultrasound examination as early as possible to exclude CSP and avoid a missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis. For patients at less than or equal to eight weeks of gestation and with a gestational sac diameter less than or equal to 3.0 cm, hysteroscopy is the preferred treatment that is safe and effective. Hysteroscopy combined with laparoscopy and laparotomy are suitable for patients with a high risk of massive bleeding, for instance, patients with a thin anterior myometrium on which abundant blood flow signals are shown, or should be considered as emergency backup plans for other surgical approaches. UAE can effectively reduce intraoperative blood loss but increases the risk of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, medical costs, and it is suitable for patients with massive bleeding during or after CSP surgery and in need of emergency hemostasis or for patients with a very high risk of bleeding confirmed by a preoperative assessment.

Key words:  Cesarean scar pregnancy      Hysteroscopy      Uterine artery embolization      Laparoscopy     
Published:  10 December 2019     
*Corresponding Author(s):  H.X. LIU     E-mail:  1099932706@qq.com

Cite this article: 

Y. Wang, F.Y. Luo, Y.D. Xia, L. Mei, L. Xie, H.X. Liu. Clinical analysis of 211 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 948-952.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog5013.2019     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2019/V46/I6/948

[1] M. Elmahdy, I. Elfourtia, H. Maghraby. Office hysteroscopy in cases of recurrent implantation failure; Do or not to do[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 723-728.
[2] G. Garuti, E. Castellacci, S. Calabrese, S. Calzolari. Hysteroscopic removal of retained products of conception with enhanced vascularity: a study of reliability[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 472-477.
[3] 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.
[4] S. B. Cohen, M. Shapira, A. Baron, J. Bouaziz, R. Mashiach, M. Goldenberg, R. Orvieto. Ultrasonography-guided hysteroscopic tubal catheterization of proximally occluded tubes - reproductive outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 872-875.
[5] A. Lavinia Cozlea, E. Előd Élthes, Á. Török, M. Emil Capîlna. Clinical presentation, risk factors and management of ectopic pregnancy: a case-control study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 914-919.
[6] R. T. Ratner, A. Harris, J. Tsaltas, N. Goyal, M. Davies-Tuck, H. Najjar, O. Barel. An eight-year retrospective analysis of laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis, outcomes and complications in a large multicenter unit[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 699-703.
[7] L. Giannella, K. Mfuta, L. B. Cerami, F. Boselli. Does uterine position affect pain intensity during outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 787-791.
[8] A. Pontis, L. Nappi, F. Sorrentino, S. Angioni. Differential diagnosis of adenomyosis: the role of hysteroscopy and laparoscopy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 511-515.
[9] M. Simonsen, L. Martins Campbell, R. Moretti Marques. Uterine manipulator - low budget option[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 575-577.
[10] N.N. Chavan, R. Deshmukh, N. Raj. An observational study on diagnosis and management of adnexal masses in pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 583-586.
[11] S. Gyroglou, X. Anthoulaki, D. Deuteraiou, A. Chalkidou, B. Manav, G. Galazios, V. Souftas, P. Tsikouras. Amenorrhea incidence among symptomatic premenopausal women with uterine fibroids after uterine artery embolization (UAE). Our experience[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 618-622.
[12] A. Le, L. Yang, Z. Wang, X. Y. Dai, T. H. Xiao, R. Zhuo, R. Yuan, T. Tulandi. Two cases of uterine and vaginal malformations[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 658-660.
[13] S. Matsuoka, H. Tsujioka, M. Ando, Y. To, T. Koyanagi, H. Kondo, F. Eguchi. Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis associated with a tiny ovarian teratoma diagnosed by exploratory laparoscopy: report of two cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(2): 305-308.
[14] A. Daniilidis, K. Chatzistamatiou, M. Siskou, ü. Kalkan, T. Theodoridis, S. Angioni. Vault prolapse occurrence after total laparoscopic hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy performed for benign indications, is there a difference? A systematic review of the literature[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(2): 183-185.
[15] I. Rudic Biljic-Erski, M. Vasiljevic, S. Rakic, S. Mihajlovic, O. D. Smiljkovic. The impact of hysteroscopic myomectomy on fertility and pregnancy outcomes of infertile women according characteristics of submucous fibroids[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(2): 235-240.
No Suggested Reading articles found!