Approaches in the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Risk Factors for Intraoperative Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study

被引:28
作者
Lin, Yaying [1 ]
Xiong, Chang [1 ,2 ]
Dong, Chunlin [1 ]
Yu, Jinjin [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Jiangnan Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Wuxi, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Jiangnan Univ, Wuxi Med Coll, Wuxi, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
关键词
cesarean scar pregnancy; hysteroscopic curettage; uterine artery embolization; clinical classification; intraoperative hemorrhage; UTERINE ARTERY EMBOLIZATION; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; REPRODUCTIVE OUTCOMES; PLACENTA-ACCRETA; MANAGEMENT; SECTION;
D O I
10.3389/fmed.2021.682368
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) involves a rare form of placental attachment that often leads to life-threatening conditions. The best treatment for CSP has been debated for decades. We aimed to evaluate the different treatments for CSP and analyzed the risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage. Methods: CSP patients treated at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University were reviewed retrospectively from January 2014 to 2020. CSP was classified into three types based on the location and shape of gestational tissue, blood flow features, and thickness of the myometrium at the incision site. The clinical characteristics, types, approaches of treatment, and clinical outcomes of CSP were analyzed. Results: A total of 55 patients were included in this study, 29 (52.7%) of whom underwent transvaginal curettage after uterine artery embolization (UAE) and 22 (40%) of whom underwent transabdominal ultrasound-guided hysteroscopic curettage (USHC) in type I and II. Four patients (7.3%) classified as type III underwent laparoscopic cesarean scar resection (LCSR). Intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, and scar diverticulum were significantly higher in type II than in type I (P < 0.05). Even though USHC showed no differences in intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, and scar diverticulum compared with curettage after UAE (P > 0.05), superiority was found in surgical time and hospitalization cost (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the type of CSP (OR = 10.53, 95% CI: 1.69-65.57; P = 0.012) and diameter of the gestational sac (OR = 25.76, 95% CI: 2.67-248.20; P = 0.005) were found to be risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage. Conclusions: Transabdominal ultrasound-guided hysteroscopic curettage is an effective and relatively safe treatment option for patients with CSP. Type of CSP and diameter of the gestational sac were found to be associated with excessive intraoperative hemorrhage.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Laparoscopic Myomectomy Versus Uterine Artery Embolization: Long-Term Impact on Markers of Ovarian Reserve [J].
Arthur, Rebecca ;
Kachura, John ;
Liu, Grace ;
Chan, Crystal ;
Shapiro, Heather .
JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA, 2014, 36 (03) :240-247
[2]   Outcome of Cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Cali, G. ;
Timor-Tritsch, I. E. ;
Palacios-Jaraquemada, J. ;
Monteaugudo, A. ;
Buca, D. ;
Forlani, F. ;
Familiari, A. ;
Scambia, G. ;
Acharya, G. ;
D'Antonio, F. .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 51 (02) :169-+
[3]   Local Methotrexate Injection as the First-line Treatment for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Review of the Literature [J].
Cheung, Vincent Y. T. .
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 22 (05) :753-758
[4]  
Family Planning Subgroup Chinese Society of Obstetrics and Gynocology Chinese Medical Association, 2016, Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi, V51, P568, DOI 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2016.08.003
[5]   Therapeutic approach for the cesarean scar pregnancy [J].
Fu, Li-Ping .
MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (18)
[6]   Reproductive outcomes following cesarean scar pregnancy - a case series and review of the literature [J].
Gao, Lufen ;
Huang, Zhongwei ;
Zhang, Xian ;
Zhou, Na ;
Huang, Xinke ;
Wang, Xiaoyu .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2016, 200 :102-107
[7]   Conservative treatment by chemotherapy and uterine arteries embolization of a cesarean scar pregnancy [J].
Ghezzi, F ;
Laganà, D ;
Franchi, M ;
Fugazzola, C ;
Bolis, P .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2002, 103 (01) :88-91
[8]   Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK: a national cohort study [J].
Harb, H. M. ;
Knight, M. ;
Bottomley, C. ;
Overton, C. ;
Tobias, A. ;
Gallos, I. D. ;
Shehmar, M. ;
Farquharson, R. ;
Horne, A. ;
Latthe, P. ;
Edi-Osagie, E. ;
MacLean, M. ;
Marston, E. ;
Zamora, J. ;
Dawood, F. ;
Small, R. ;
Ross, J. ;
Bourne, T. ;
Coomarasamy, A. ;
Jurkovic, D. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2018, 125 (13) :1663-1670
[9]   Loss of ovarian reserve after uterine artery embolization: a randomized comparison with hysterectomy [J].
Hehenkamp, Wouter J. K. ;
Volkers, Nicole A. ;
Broekmans, Frank J. M. ;
de Jong, Frank H. ;
Themmen, Axel P. N. ;
Birnie, Erwin ;
Reekers, Jim A. ;
Ankum, Willem M. .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2007, 22 (07) :1996-2005
[10]   Recurrent ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean scar [J].
Holland, Marium G. ;
Bienstock, Jessica L. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 111 (02) :541-545