Literature DB >> 27420402

Natural history of Cesarean scar pregnancy on prenatal ultrasound: the crossover sign.

G Cali1, F Forlani1, I E Timor-Tritsch2, J Palacios-Jaraquemada3, G Minneci1, F D'Antonio4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Advances in prenatal imaging techniques have led to an increase in the diagnosis of Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). However, antenatal counseling when CSP is diagnosed is challenging, and current evidence is derived mainly from small series reporting high rates of adverse maternal outcomes. The aim of this study was to ascertain the performance of prenatal ultrasound in predicting the natural history of CSP using a new sonographic sign, the crossover sign (COS).
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of early first-trimester (6-8 weeks' gestation) ultrasound images in women with morbidly adherent placenta (MAP) managed in the third trimester of pregnancy. The relationship between the gestational sac of the CSP, anterior uterine wall and Cesarean scar, defined as the COS, was analyzed to determine whether it could predict evolution in these cases. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated and logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between different types of COS (COS-1, COS-2+ or COS-2-) and the occurrence of MAP.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight pregnancies with MAP were included. The risk of placenta percreta was significantly higher in pregnancies with COS-1 than in those with COS-2 (OR, 6.67 (95% CI, 1.3-33.3)). When evaluating the two variants of COS-2 separately, the risk of placenta percreta was significantly higher in pregnancies with COS-1 vs COS-2+ (OR, 5.83 (95% CI, 1.1-30.2)) and this risk was even higher when comparing cases with COS-1 vs COS-2- (OR, 12.0 (95% CI, 1.9-75.7)). Logistic regression analysis showed that COS-1 was associated independently with severe forms of MAP, such as placenta percreta and increta (OR, 12.85 (95% CI, 2.0-84.0)), while COS-2+ was associated independently with placenta accreta (OR, 4.37 (95% CI, 1.1-17.0)).
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound assessment of the relationship between the gestational sac of a CSP and the endometrial line (the COS) may help to determine whether a CSP will progress towards a less severe form of MAP, amenable to postnatal treatment, and successful pregnancy outcome. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings and elucidate the natural history of this condition.
Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean scar pregnancy; morbidly adherent placenta; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27420402     DOI: 10.1002/uog.16216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  10 in total

1.  The potential risk factors of placenta increta and the role of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane.

Authors:  Yan Long; Min Jiang; Fei Gao; Mengru Han; Qiangsheng Gan; Fangling Zeng; Shanshui Zeng; Yanwei Hu; Xianhui Dong; Weitao Ye; Chunyan Zhu; Hongling Yang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 2.493

2.  Surgical outcomes of cesarean scar pregnancy: an 8-year experience at a single institution.

Authors:  Xiaofeng Xu; Dongdong Li; Lan Yang; Xiujuan Jing; Xiangyi Kong; Dezhu Chen; Tong Ru; Huaijun Zhou
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Uterine Artery Embolization (UAE) versus Laparoscopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Debridement Surgery (LCSPDS) in Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.

Authors:  Junhong Guo; Jiangtao Yu; Qing Zhang; Xiaojie Song
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-07-06

4.  Definition and sonographic reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy in early gestation: modified Delphi method.

Authors:  I P M Jordans; C Verberkt; R A De Leeuw; C M Bilardo; T Van Den Bosch; T Bourne; H A M Brölmann; M Dueholm; W J K Hehenkamp; N Jastrow; D Jurkovic; A Kaelin Agten; R Mashiach; O Naji; E Pajkrt; D Timmerman; O Vikhareva; L F Van Der Voet; J A F Huirne
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 8.678

Review 5.  Generic chemoprevention of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Sai Krishna Athuluri-Divakar; Yujin Hoshida
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 6.499

6.  Recurrent Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy Treated with Systemic Methotrexate.

Authors:  Chima Ndubizu; Rodney A McLaren; Sandra McCalla; Mohamad Irani
Journal:  Case Rep Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-11-23

7.  Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Successfully Managed to Term: When the Patient Is Determined to Keep the Pregnancy.

Authors:  Ranko Kutlesic; Marija Kutlesic; Predrag Vukomanovic; Milan Stefanovic; Danka Mostic-Stanisic
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 2.430

8.  Combination of medical and surgical management in successful treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a case report series.

Authors:  Anda Pristavu; Angela Vinturache; Elena Mihalceanu; Radu Pintilie; Mircea Onofriescu; Demetra Socolov
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Anatomy of the sonographic post-cesarean uterus.

Authors:  Ammar Al Naimi; Bartosch Wolnicki; Niki Mouzakiti; Tiana Reinbach; Frank Louwen; Franz Bahlmann
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 2.344

10.  Value of Crossover Sign in Anticipating Under-8-week Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Treatment by Foley Insertion Combined with Suction Curettage in Vietnam.

Authors:  Tuan Minh Vo; Hoang T Dinh; Thong P Van; Christopher Son Nguyen
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2021-04-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.