Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2020, Vol. 47 Issue (6): 900-905    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2020.06.5476
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Is preprocessing helpful for suction and curettage in treating cesarean scar pregnancy?
J.R. Huang1, X. Li2, C. Fu1, Y.H. Deng1, T. Gao1, H.W. Zhang1, *()
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, P.R. China
2Pediatric Research Institute, Hunan Children’s Hospital, Changsha, P.R. China
Download:  PDF(326KB)  ( 122 ) Full text   ( 8 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of suction and curettage (SC), with and without preprocessing, as a therapeutic strategy for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Materials and methods: This retrospective study included 257 patients with CSP who received ultrasound-guided SC. Patients were grouped into the direct SC group (122 cases) and the preprocessing SC group (135 cases). The preprocessing SC group was further divided into four subgroups based on the different preprocessing methods (methotrexate injection, oral mifepristone, methotrexate with mifepristone, and uterine artery embolization/chemoembolization). Results: There was no significant difference in success rates between the preprocessing SC group and the direct SC group (94.07% vs. 97.54%, p > 0.05). The preprocessing SC group had increased intraoperative bleeding, longer operation times, prolonged hospital stays, and increased in-hospital costs (all p values < 0.05, compared with the direct SC group). Among the preprocessing SC group, the in-hospital cost for the uterine artery embolization/chemoembolization subgroup was significantly higher than that for the other subgroups. Conclusions: Preprocessing steps may do not increase the success rate of SC for CSP under certain conditions. Optimization of the preprocessing step requires further research. Content: The effectiveness of suction and curettage and other methods in treating cesarean scar pregnancy has been evaluated.
Key words:  Cesarean section      Ectopic pregnancy      Cesarean scar pregnancy      Termination of pregnancy     
Submitted:  04 January 2020      Accepted:  21 May 2020      Published:  15 December 2020     
*Corresponding Author(s):  HONGWEN ZHANG     E-mail:  zhw@csu.edu.cn

Cite this article: 

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?. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 900-905.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.06.5476     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2020/V47/I6/900

[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] Athanasia Tsaroucha, Aliki Tympa Grigoriadou, Tania Moshovou, Kassiani Theodoraki, Aikaterini Melemeni. Efficacy of intrathecally administered fentanyl versus dexmedetomidine for cesarean section: a double blinded, randomized clinical trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1065-1070.
[3] Eser Ağar, Seda Şahin Aker. Effect of sexual dysfunction on women's preference for delivery methods: a social media-based survey[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1154-1161.
[4] Uros Visic, Tatjana Stopar Pintaric, Tit Albreht, Iva Blajic, Miha Lucovnik. Multimodal stepwise analgesia for reducing opioid consumption after cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1162-1166.
[5] Lorenz Hinterleitner, Herbert Kiss, Johannes Ott. The impact of Cesarean section on female fertility: a narrative review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 781-786.
[6] Qian Hu, Mohammed Sharooq Paramboor, Tao Guo. Diagnosis and management of intramural ectopic pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 974-979.
[7] Dragan Belci, Gian Carlo Di Renzo, Davor Zoričić, Andrea Tinelli, Antonio Malvasi, Michael Stark. Less is more—a minimal approach technique for Cesarean Section[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 478-482.
[8] Eser Ağar, Gökhan Karakoç. Comparison of electrocautery and scalpel for blood loss and postoperative pain in Pfannenstiel incisions in recurrent cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 534-539.
[9] 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.
[10] Lejla Kamerić, Anis Cerovac, Mirzeta Rizvanović, Alen Kamerić, Mahira Jahić, Dubravko Habek. Frequency of cesarean section in pregnant women with risk factors for preeclampsia: prospective cohort study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 561-566.
[11] Batool Ali H. Alkhazal, Majed Abdullah Halawani, Ibtihal Omar Alsahabi, Hassan S.O. Abduljabbar. The preferred mode of delivery among primigravida Middle Eastern Women. A questionnaire based study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 567-571.
[12] Faris Mujezinović, Veronika Anzeljc, Monika Sobočan, Iztok Takač. Do women in Slovenia prefer vaginal birth after prior caesarean and what hinders its successful outcome? A single institution retrospective analysis[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 607-614.
[13] Ryuichi Shimaoka, Tomomi Shiga, Ken-ichirou Morishige. Change in uterine artery blood flow with intrauterine balloon tamponade[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 307-311.
[14] 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.
[15] Xiao-Hua Li, Jian-Kun Zhou, Jing-Dan Cheng. Application of ultrasound in hepatic pregnancy: a case report and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 434-438.
No Suggested Reading articles found!