Zhi-Da Qian1, Li-Li Huang2, Xiao-Ming Zhu2,3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 1 Xueshi Road, Hangzhou, 310006, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 1 Xueshi Road, Hangzhou, 310006, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China. fbzhuxiaoming@163.com. 3. Key Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Zhejiang University), Ministry of Education, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China. fbzhuxiaoming@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effects of dilatation and curettage (D&C) regimen and operative hysteroscopy coupled with curettage regimen in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) following preventive uterine artery embolization (UAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three women were treated with D&C after UAE (group A) and 33 women were treated with operative hysteroscopy coupled with curettage after UAE (group B). The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the success rate, the intraoperative blood loss, the hysterectomy rate, the hospitalization time, the decline of serum β-hCG after surgery, the time of serum β-hCG resolution, the time of vaginal bleeding after surgery, the time to CSP mass disappearance, and the subsequent intrauterine pregnancies. The hospitalization cost in group B was higher than group A. CONCLUSIONS: Both D&C and operative hysteroscopy coupled with curettage were successful in terminating a CSP. Hysteroscopy coupled with curettage regimen did not have significant advantages and good prognosis in dealing with the gestational sac type of CSP following preventive UAE compared with D&C regimen. Treatment should be individualized and several conditions must be considered.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effects of dilatation and curettage (D&C) regimen and operative hysteroscopy coupled with curettage regimen in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) following preventive uterine artery embolization (UAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three women were treated with D&C after UAE (group A) and 33 women were treated with operative hysteroscopy coupled with curettage after UAE (group B). The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the success rate, the intraoperative blood loss, the hysterectomy rate, the hospitalization time, the decline of serum β-hCG after surgery, the time of serum β-hCG resolution, the time of vaginal bleeding after surgery, the time to CSP mass disappearance, and the subsequent intrauterine pregnancies. The hospitalization cost in group B was higher than group A. CONCLUSIONS: Both D&C and operative hysteroscopy coupled with curettage were successful in terminating a CSP. Hysteroscopy coupled with curettage regimen did not have significant advantages and good prognosis in dealing with the gestational sac type of CSP following preventive UAE compared with D&C regimen. Treatment should be individualized and several conditions must be considered.