Different treatment modalities and outcomes in cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective analysis of 31 cases in a unıversity hospital
Abstract
Objectives: There is no standardized treatment modality or a generally accepted guideline in cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) treatment. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the outcomes of the different treatment modalities used in CSP treatment.
Material and methods: 31 CSP patients retrospectively evaluated between May 2011 and February at Uludag University Hospital in Bursa, Turkey included in the study. A graphical flowchart according to the treatment modalities and timeline graphics of the patients were used. Main outcome measures were recurrent CSPs and healthy pregnancies in clinical follow-up after a successful CSP treatment.
Results: 31 CSP patients were treated with six different treatment modalities in our series. Recurrent CSP was diagnosed in three patients after a successful CSP treatment. All of these recurrent CSPs were treated with D/C procedure in their first CSP. Six patients conceived again in clinical follow-up after successful treatment of CSP.
Conclusions: CSP is a serious maternal complication that risks the mother’s life, and this problem is growing because of the increased cesarean rates. Invasive procedures applied to the uterus in CSP treatment may cause recurrent CSP in the next pregnancy of the patient. When considering the treatment options of the CSP, minimally invasive treatment modalities and the subsequent gestation of the patient should be taken into account.
Keywords: Cesarean scar pregnancytreatment modalitiesMorbidly adherent placenta
References
- Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2): e0148343.
- Turkey Ministry of Health, Health Statistics Yearbook of 2015. http://www.saglikistatistikleri.gov.tr/dosyalar/SIY_2015.pdf.
- World Health Organization. 2016. “WORLD HEALTH STATISTICS- MONITORING HEALTH FOR THE SDGs.” World Health Organization: 1.121.
- Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Bennett TA, et al. The diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207(1): 44.e1–44.13.
- Shi M, Zhang H, Qi SS, et al. Identifying risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective study of 79 cases. Ginekol Pol. 2018; 89(4): 195–199.
- 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.
- Jelsema RD, Zuidema L. First-trimester diagnosed cervico-isthmic pregnancy resulting in term delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 80(3 Pt 2): 517–519.
- Matyszkiewicz A, Jach R, Nocuń A, et al. [Cesarean scar pregnancy]. Ginekol Pol. 2015; 86(10): 791–798.
- Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 66(1): 89–92.
- Rotas M, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancies. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006; 107(6): 1373–1381.
- Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, et al. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 21(3): 220–227.
- Comstock CH, Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44(3): 346–353.
- Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207(1): 14–29.
- Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG. 2007; 114(3): 253–263.
- Timor-Tritsch IE, Khatib N, Monteagudo A, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancies: experience of 60 cases. J Ultrasound Med. 2015; 34(4): 601–610.
- Calì G, Timor-Trisch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, et al. Outcome of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 140(3): 319–325.
- Sinha P, Mishra M. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a precursor of placenta percreta/accreta. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 32(7): 621–623.
- Liu S, Sun J, Cai B, et al. Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Using Ultrasound-Guided Dilation and Curettage. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(5): 707–711.
- Polat I, Ekiz A, Acar DK, et al. Suction curettage as first line treatment in cases with cesarean scar pregnancy: feasibility and effectiveness in early pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(7): 1066–1071.
- Birch Petersen K, Hoffmann E, Rifbjerg Larsen C, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(4): 958–967.
- Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Bujold E, et al. Cesarean Scar Pregnancies: A Systematic Review of Treatment Options. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(6): 915–925.
- Qian ZD, Weng Y, Du YJ, et al. Management of persistent caesarean scar pregnancy after curettage treatment failure. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17(1): 208.
- Wozniak S, Pyra K, Kłudka-Sternik M, et al. Uterine artery embolization using gelatin sponge particles performed due to massive vaginal bleeding caused by ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a case study. Ginekol Pol. 2013; 84(11): 966–969.
- Monteagudo A, Minior VK, Stephenson C, et al. Non-surgical management of live ectopic pregnancy with ultrasound-guided local injection: a case series. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 25(3): 282–288.
- Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(5): 731–738.
- Spychała P, Nowakowski B. [Laparoscopic management of an ectopic pregnancy in a previous caesarean section scar]. Ginekol Pol. 2012; 83(8): 622–625.
