open access

Vol 89, No 4 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2018-04-30
Get Citation

Identifying risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective study of 79 cases

Min Shi, Hui Zhang, Sha-Sha Qi, Wen-Hui Liu, Ming Liu, Xing-Bo Zhao, Yu-Lan Mu
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2018.0033
·
Pubmed: 29781074
·
Ginekol Pol 2018;89(4):196-200.

open access

Vol 89, No 4 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2018-04-30

Abstract

 Objectives: To explore the possible risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), the incidence of which is increasing rapidly in China. Material and methods: 79 patients with CSP and 69 non-CSP expectant mothers with at least 1 previous cesarean section were employed in the study. The obstetric histories of the participants were collected and analyzed using Chi square test. Results: We found that 77.2% CSP patients had ≥ 3 pregnancies and only 36.2% women had ≥ 3 pregnacies in non-CSP group. During the previous cesarean delivery, 21.5% of CSP patients had entered the first stage of labor, which was 43.5% in non-CSP group (P < 0.05). Cephalopelvic disproportion occurred in 51.9% of CSP patients, which was significantly higher than that (23.2%) in non-CSP group (P < 0.01). 11.4% of CSP patients had undergone cesarean section due to breech and shoulder presentation in the past, which was only 1.4% in non-CSP group. However, no significance was noted (P > 0.05). We did not find significant differences between the CSP and non-CSP patients in maternal age, multiple cesarean sections, gestational age, emergency or elective caesarean section. Conclusions: Multiple pregnancies, absence of the first stage of labor, and cephalopelvic disproportion might be the risk factors for the occurrence of CSP.   

Abstract

 Objectives: To explore the possible risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), the incidence of which is increasing rapidly in China. Material and methods: 79 patients with CSP and 69 non-CSP expectant mothers with at least 1 previous cesarean section were employed in the study. The obstetric histories of the participants were collected and analyzed using Chi square test. Results: We found that 77.2% CSP patients had ≥ 3 pregnancies and only 36.2% women had ≥ 3 pregnacies in non-CSP group. During the previous cesarean delivery, 21.5% of CSP patients had entered the first stage of labor, which was 43.5% in non-CSP group (P < 0.05). Cephalopelvic disproportion occurred in 51.9% of CSP patients, which was significantly higher than that (23.2%) in non-CSP group (P < 0.01). 11.4% of CSP patients had undergone cesarean section due to breech and shoulder presentation in the past, which was only 1.4% in non-CSP group. However, no significance was noted (P > 0.05). We did not find significant differences between the CSP and non-CSP patients in maternal age, multiple cesarean sections, gestational age, emergency or elective caesarean section. Conclusions: Multiple pregnancies, absence of the first stage of labor, and cephalopelvic disproportion might be the risk factors for the occurrence of CSP.   

Get Citation

Keywords

cesarean scar pregnancy, cesarean section, lower uterine segment

Supplementary Files (2)
Table 1
Download
62KB
Title page
Download
12KB
About this article
Title

Identifying risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective study of 79 cases

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 89, No 4 (2018)

Pages

196-200

Published online

2018-04-30

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2018.0033

Pubmed

29781074

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2018;89(4):196-200.

Keywords

cesarean scar pregnancy
cesarean section
lower uterine segment

Authors

Min Shi
Hui Zhang
Sha-Sha Qi
Wen-Hui Liu
Ming Liu
Xing-Bo Zhao
Yu-Lan Mu

References (25)
  1. Larsen JV, Solomon MH. Pregnancy in a uterine scar sacculus--an unusual cause of postabortal haemorrhage. A case report. S Afr Med J. 1978; 53(4): 142–143.
  2. Fylstra DL. Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002; 57(8): 537–543.
  3. Riaz RM, Williams TR, Craig BM, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: imaging features, current treatment options, and clinical outcomes. Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40(7): 2589–2599.
  4. Ugurlucan FG, Bastu E, Dogan M, et al. Management of cesarean heterotopic pregnancy with transvaginal ultrasound-guided potassium chloride injection and gestational sac aspiration, and review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19(5): 671–673.
  5. Uysal F, Uysal A, Adam G. Cesarean scar pregnancy: diagnosis, management, and follow-up. J Ultrasound Med. 2013; 32(7): 1295–1300.
  6. Birge Ö, Karaca C, Arslan D, et al. Medical management of cesarean scar pregnancy at advanced age: case report and literature review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 43(1): 140–142.
  7. Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, et al. Changes in Cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41(5): 556–562.
  8. Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in a Caesarean scar: review of the medical approach to an iatrogenic complication. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10(6): 515–523.
  9. Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 21(3): 310.
  10. Wang Q, Peng HL, He L, et al. Reproductive outcomes after previous cesarean scar pregnancy: Follow up of 189 women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 54(5): 551–553.
  11. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23(3): 247–253.
  12. Lincenberg KR, Behrman ER, Bembry JS, et al. Uterine Rupture with Cesarean Scar Heterotopic Pregnancy with Survival of the Intrauterine Twin. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 2016: 6832094.
  13. Mahajan D, Kang M, Sandhu MS, et al. Rare complications of cesarean scar. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2013; 23(3): 258–261.
  14. Api M, Boza A, Gorgen H, et al. Should Cesarean Scar Defect Be Treated Laparoscopically? A Case Report and Review of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(7): 1145–1152.
  15. Qian ZD, Guo QY, Huang LL. Identifying risk factors for recurrent cesarean scar pregnancy: a case-control study. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102(1): 129–134.e1.
  16. Vial Y, Petignat P, Hohlfeld P. Pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 16(6): 592–593.
  17. Marchiolé P, Gorlero F, de Caro G, et al. Intramural pregnancy embedded in a previous Cesarean section scar treated conservatively. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23(3): 307–309.
  18. Wu R, Klein MA, Mahboob S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as an adjunct to ultrasound in evaluating cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2013; 3: 16.
  19. Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(6): 1373–1381.
  20. Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG. 2007; 114(3): 253–263.
  21. Rosen T. Placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy: overlooked costs of the rising cesarean section rate. Clin Perinatol. 2008; 35(3): 519–529, .
  22. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, et al. Does the presence of a Caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit? Hum Reprod. 2013; 28(6): 1489–1496.
  23. Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, et al. Does the presence of a cesarean section scar influence the site of placental implantation and subsequent migration in future pregnancies: a prospective case-control study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40(5): 557–561.
  24. Chuang J, Seow KM, Cheng WC, et al. Conservative treatment of ectopic pregnancy in a caesarean section scar. BJOG. 2003; 110(9): 869–870.
  25. Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in Caesarean section scars: the 8 year experience of one medical centre. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(2): 278–284.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl