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)  ( 213 ) 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] Alessandra Gallo, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Antonietta Legnante, Romolo Di Iorio, Carlo De Angelis. Hysteroscopy in COVID-19 times[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1017-1021.
[2] 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.
[3] Ranit Hizkiyahu, Shannon Salvador, Michael H. Dahan. Ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in a woman with borderline serous ovarian tumor causing a large fluctuating subcutaneous fluid collection: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1215-1218.
[4] Üzeyir Kalkan, Murat Yassa, Kadir Bakay, Şafak Hatırnaz. Mechanical bowel preparation prior to gynaecological laparoscopy enables better operative field visualization, lower pneumoperitoneum pressure and Trendelenburg angle during the surgery: a perspective that may add to patient safety[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 842-850.
[5] Maurizio Nicola D'Alterio, Francesco Scicchitano, Daniela Fanni, Gavino Faa, Antonio Simone Laganà, Marco Noventa, Felice Sorrentino, Luigi Nappi, Stefano Angioni. Ex vivo myolysis with dual wavelengths diode laser system: macroscopicand histopathological examination[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 875-882.
[6] Basilio Pecorino, Giuseppe Scibilia, Placido Borzì, Maria Elena Vento, Pierfrancesco Veroux, Paolo Scollo. Diminished ovarian reserve and ectopic ovaries in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome candidates for Uterus Transplantation: our experience[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 907-912.
[7] Rocio Montejo, Jonas Hermansson, Lena Sandin Wranker, Louise Danielsson. Doula support in office hysteroscopy: results from a pilot study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 955-961.
[8] 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.
[9] Li-Min Zhou, Jie Duan, Yan Yang. Endoscopic treatment with concomitant ultrasound monitoring of obstructive septum in Robert's uterus following pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 711-714.
[10] 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.
[11] Ja Young Kim, Yun Gyu Song, Chang-Woon Kim, Moon Ok Lee. Uterine artery embolization using gelatin sponge particles for symptomatic focal and diffuse adenomyosis[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(1): 59-65.
[12] 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.
[13] X.R. Wang, Y.F. Wang, S.W. Kang, Y. Zhang. Treatment outcomes of uterine lesion resection versus hysterectomy for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 882-886.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
No Suggested Reading articles found!