Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2020, Vol. 47 Issue (6): 882-886    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2020.06.2123
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Treatment outcomes of uterine lesion resection versus hysterectomy for cesarean scar pregnancy
X.R. Wang1, Y.F. Wang2, S.W. Kang1, Y. Zhang1, *()
1Operation Room, Shidao People's Hospital, Weihai 264308, Shandong Province, P.R. China
2Department of Obstetrics, Weihai Central Hospital, Weihai 264400, Shandong Province, P.R. China
Download:  PDF(174KB)  ( 106 ) Full text   ( 7 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Objective: To compare the effects of uterine lesion resection (ULR) and hysterectomy on cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Materials and Methods: A total of 147 patients admitted from January 2009 to January 2019 and diagnosed as CSP by pathological examination were selected, of whom 105 underwent ULR and 42 received hysterectomy. The gestational age, size of gestational mass, serum β-hCG level, previous treatments and clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: Compared with the hysterectomy group, the ULR group had significantly lower gestational age, size of gestational mass and proportion of persistent CSP (p < 0.05), and significantly higher serum β-hCG level (p = 0.011). The median gestational ages of ULR and hysterectomy groups at termination of pregnancy were 67 d and 83 d, respectively, and their median bleeding volumes were 400 mL and 650 mL, respectively (p < 0.05). In the ULR group, the median bleeding volumes of patients with gestational age of ≥ 10 weeks (n = 48) and < 10 weeks (n = 57) were 500 mL and 300 mL, respectively (p < 0.05). Twenty-one cases (20%, 21/105) were switched to hysterectomy due to emergency CSP during curettage, of whom 6 had uterine perforation and 15 had massive bleeding (200-800 mL). The hysterectomy group all received emergency hysterectomy owing to massive bleeding. The proportions of blood transfusion and emergency CSP in the ULR group were significantly lower than those of the hysterectomy group (p < 0.01). Twenty-one patients (14.29%, 21/147) in the two groups suffered from serious complications. Neither group had bladder injury. Conclusion: ULR was mainly suitable for CSP patients with the gestational age of 9-10 weeks at termination of pregnancy, gestational mass size of 60-90 mm, failed initial treatment but stable hemodynamics. Hysterectomy instead of ULR was safer for patients in critical conditions with the gestational age of > 12 weeks.
Key words:  Uterine lesion resection      Hysterectomy      Cesarean scar pregnancy     
Submitted:  23 December 2019      Accepted:  07 May 2020      Published:  15 December 2020     
*Corresponding Author(s):  YAN ZHANG     E-mail:  zhangyansph@onet.pl

Cite this article: 

X.R. Wang, Y.F. Wang, S.W. Kang, Y. Zhang. Treatment outcomes of uterine lesion resection versus hysterectomy for cesarean scar pregnancy. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 882-886.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.06.2123     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2020/V47/I6/882

[1] Xin Du, Qian Zou, Yu-Lan Liu. Transumbilical single-hole laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy by uterine artery pre-ligation: a report of 4 cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1044-1047.
[2] Cengiz Andan, Serif Aksin, Mehmet Rifat Goklu, Seyhmus Tunc. Factors related to blood loss in laparoscopic hysterectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1075-1080.
[3] Lin Ling, Juanjuan Fu, Lei Zhan, Wenyan Wang, Qian Su, Jun Li, Bing Wei. Surgical management for type II cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 555-560.
[4] Eren Akbaba. Can high transverse skin incision (Modified Maylard) be a new alternative in placenta accreta spectrum management with cesarean hysterectomy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 686-690.
[5] Jun Xiong, Fen Fu, Wei Zhang, Ji Luo, Yuan-Yuan Xu, Lu-Lu Le, Xiao-Ju He. Study on influencing factors and related clinical issues in cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 365-371.
[6] Yuki Yoshimura, Kentaro Nakayama, Kiyoka Sawada, Hitomi Yamashita, Kohei Nakamura, Tomoka Ishibashi, Masako Ishikawa, Sultana Razia, Seiya Sato, Satoru Kyo. A case of rectal injury due to vaginal pipe misinsertion during total laparoscopic hysterectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(1): 194-197.
[7] J.R. Huang, X. Li, Q.Z. Peng, J.J. Zhang, X.X. Lin, L.Q. Xie, X.H. Wu, W.S. Zhang. Elective embryo or fetal reduction for caesarean scar pregnancy combined with intrauterine pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 867-874.
[8] O. Sevket, T. Takmaz, A.C. Sevket, A. Toprak, P. Ozcan. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with anterior colpotomy (VALSAC): technique and mean 20 months outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 887-894.
[9] J.L. Liu, J.M. Chen, Y.F. Zheng, X.W. Zhang, R.X. Shi. 5 mm mini-incision laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of total hysterectomy: a report of five cases and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 895-899.
[10] J.R. Huang, X. Li, C. Fu, Y.H. Deng, T. Gao, H.W. Zhang. Is preprocessing helpful for suction and curettage in treating cesarean scar pregnancy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 900-905.
[11] L.B. Liu, H.T. Sun, S.F. Liu, R.X. Shi. Laparoscopy combined with hysteroscopy for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 911-914.
[12] Ö. Koşar Can, Ö.T. Güler, Ü. Çabuş, D. Kılıç, C. Kabukçu. Evaluation of sexual functions and quality of life in female patients after hysterectomy for benign symptomatic diseases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 693-700.
[13] E.D. Na, S.H. Choi, H. Park. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for concurrent hysterectomy and cholecystectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 792-796.
[14] P. Phangsuwan, P. Suprasert. Development of abnormal bowel function after simple hysterectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 744-748.
[15] 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.
No Suggested Reading articles found!