open access

Vol 91, No 7 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-07-31
Get Citation

Clinical characteristics and treatment of different types of cesarean scar pregnancy

Xuai Yin, Shihai Huang
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2020.0065
·
Pubmed: 32779161
·
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(7):406-411.

open access

Vol 91, No 7 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-07-31

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and compare the treatment efficacy of
different types of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
Material and methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 66 women (69 cases) with CSP who received treatment
with mifepristone/methotrexate (MTX) plus curettage, uterine artery embolization (UAE) plus curettage, additional
MTX, or laparotomy, and compared the clinical characteristics, treatment efficacy, and occurrence of complications among
3 types of CSP (partial, complete, and mass type).
Results: Review of the 69 cases revealed a considerable increase of gestational duration(p < 0.001), sac/lesion size(p < 0.001)
and vaginal bleeding (p < 0.05) in patients with mass-type CSP compared to that of other types. All CSP cases were successfully
treated, 4 cases of mass-type received laparotomy and none of the cases required a hysterectomy. Severe bleeding
was observed in 2 cases of partial-type and complete-type, respectively, and 3 cases for mass-type. Moreover, bleeding
occurred during initial treatment with mifepristone plus curettage in partial-type cases, but not with UAE plus curettage.
Conclusions: UAE plus curettage is a more effective treatment option for partial- and complete-type of CSP than mifepristone
plus curettage. The cases of mass-type often need surgery and are prone to have longer gestational duration, larger
lesions, and more vaginal bleeding.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and compare the treatment efficacy of
different types of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
Material and methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 66 women (69 cases) with CSP who received treatment
with mifepristone/methotrexate (MTX) plus curettage, uterine artery embolization (UAE) plus curettage, additional
MTX, or laparotomy, and compared the clinical characteristics, treatment efficacy, and occurrence of complications among
3 types of CSP (partial, complete, and mass type).
Results: Review of the 69 cases revealed a considerable increase of gestational duration(p < 0.001), sac/lesion size(p < 0.001)
and vaginal bleeding (p < 0.05) in patients with mass-type CSP compared to that of other types. All CSP cases were successfully
treated, 4 cases of mass-type received laparotomy and none of the cases required a hysterectomy. Severe bleeding
was observed in 2 cases of partial-type and complete-type, respectively, and 3 cases for mass-type. Moreover, bleeding
occurred during initial treatment with mifepristone plus curettage in partial-type cases, but not with UAE plus curettage.
Conclusions: UAE plus curettage is a more effective treatment option for partial- and complete-type of CSP than mifepristone
plus curettage. The cases of mass-type often need surgery and are prone to have longer gestational duration, larger
lesions, and more vaginal bleeding.

Get Citation

Keywords

cesarean scar pregnancy; clinical characteristics; treatment efficacy; complication

About this article
Title

Clinical characteristics and treatment of different types of cesarean scar pregnancy

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 91, No 7 (2020)

Pages

406-411

Published online

2020-07-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.2020.0065

Pubmed

32779161

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2020;91(7):406-411.

Keywords

cesarean scar pregnancy
clinical characteristics
treatment efficacy
complication

Authors

Xuai Yin
Shihai Huang

References (27)
  1. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu Am, Lumbiganon P, et al. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010; 8: 71.
  2. Calì G, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, et al. Outcome of Cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 51(2): 169–175.
  3. 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: 142–143.
  4. Smith A, Ash A, Maxwell D, et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG. 2007; 114(3): 253–263.
  5. Peng P, Gui T, Liu X, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of local and systemic methotrexate injection in cesarean scar pregnancy. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015; 11: 137–142.
  6. Qian ZD, Weng Y, Du YJ, et al. Risk factors for intraoperative hemorrhage at evacuation of a cesarean scar pregnancy following uterine artery embolization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013; 123(3): 240–243.
  7. Zhuang Y, Huang L. Uterine artery embolization compared with methotrexate for the management of pregnancy implanted within a cesarean scar. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201(2): 152.e1–152.e3.
  8. Li C, Li C, Feng D, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization versus systemic methotrexate for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 113(3): 178–182.
  9. Wang M, Yang Z, Li Y, et al. Conservative management of cesarean scar pregnancies: a prospective randomized controlled trial at a single center. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(10): 18972–18980.
  10. Li Y, Gong L, Wu X, et al. Randomized controlled trial of hysteroscopy or ultrasonography versus no guidance during D&C after uterine artery chemoembolization for cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 135(2): 158–162.
  11. Harb HM, Knight M, Bottomley C, et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK: a national cohort study. BJOG. 2018; 125(13): 1663–1670.
  12. Lin SY, Hsieh CJ, Tu YA, et al. New ultrasound grading system for cesarean scar pregnancy and its implications for management strategies: An observational cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8): e0202020.
  13. He Y, Wu X, Zhu Q, et al. Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Womens Health. 2014; 14: 116.
  14. 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.
  15. Fylstra D. Ectopic Pregnancy Within a Cesarean Scar: A Review. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2002; 57(8): 537–543.
  16. Vial Y, Petignat P, Hohlfeld P. Pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 16(6): 592–593.
  17. Family planning group of obstetrics and gynecology branch, Chinese medical association. Expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. Chinese J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 51: 568–571.
  18. Liu Z, Dai Q, Wang M, et al. Clinical and ultrasonic characteristics of cesarean scar pregnancy shown as lower uterine segment mass. Chinese J Med Imag. 2013; 29: 1006–1010.
  19. Luo L, Ruan X, Li C, et al. Early clinical features and risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective case-control study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018; 35(4): 337–341.
  20. Kim SoY, Yoon SoRa, Kim MiJ, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy; Diagnosis and management between 2003 and 2015 in a single center. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 57(5): 688–691.
  21. Timor-Tritsch IE, D'Antonio F, Calí G, et al. Early first-trimester transvaginal ultrasound is indicated in pregnancy after previous Cesarean delivery: should it be mandatory? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 54(2): 156–163.
  22. Ying X, Zheng W, Zhao Li, et al. Clinical characteristics and salvage management of persistent cesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017; 43(8): 1293–1298.
  23. Tumenjargal A, Tokue H, Kishi H, et al. Uterine Artery Embolization Combined with Dilation and Curettage for the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Efficacy and Future Fertility. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018; 41(8): 1165–1173.
  24. Walker WJ, McDowell SJ. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: a series of 56 completed pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(5): 1266–1271.
  25. Mohr-Sasson A, Spira M, Rahav R, et al. Ovarian reserve after uterine artery embolization in women with morbidly adherent placenta: A cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0208139.
  26. Wang S, Beejadhursing R, Ma X, et al. Management of Caesarean scar pregnancy with or without methotrexate before curettage: human chorionic gonadotropin trends and patient outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1): 289.
  27. Liu W, Shen L, Wang Q, et al. Uterine artery embolization combined with curettage vs. methotrexate plus curettage for cesarean scar pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 294(1): 71–76.

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