Literature DB >> 27634054

Randomized controlled trial of hysteroscopy or ultrasonography versus no guidance during D&C after uterine artery chemoembolization for cesarean scar pregnancy.

Yanli Li1, Liyan Gong1, Xufeng Wu1, Han Gao2, Hongbing Zheng3, Weishun Lan1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the complication rates after uterine artery chemoembolization (UACE) followed by dilation and curettage (D&C) guided by different types of monitoring for treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken of women with CSP attending a hospital in Wuhan, China, between June 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Using sealed opaque envelopes containing random numbers, participants were randomly allocated to undergo D&C with hysteroscopy monitoring, ultrasonography monitoring, or no monitoring. Participants and investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was the number of participants with complications at 2 months of follow-up after D&C. Analyses were by intention to treat.
RESULTS: Among 144 participants, 48 were assigned to hysteroscopy monitoring, 44 to ultrasonography monitoring, and 52 to no monitoring. Complications were noted for 1 (2.1%) patient in the hysteroscopy group, 2 (4.5%) in the ultrasonography group, and 12 (23.1%) in the no monitoring group (P=0.001).
CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy or ultrasonography monitoring of D&C after UACE for CSP treatment can decrease the complication rate. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02357095.
Copyright © 2016 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean scar pregnancy; Hysteroscopy monitoring; Ultrasonography monitoring; Uterine artery chemoembolization

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27634054     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.04.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet        ISSN: 0020-7292            Impact factor:   3.561


  7 in total

1.  Temporary Internal Iliac Artery Blockage versus Uterine Artery Embolization in Patients After Laparoscopic Pregnancy Tissue Removal Due to Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.

Authors:  Qian Zhao; Xue-Yu Sun; Shu-Qi Ma; Meng-Wei Miao; Gai-Ling Li; Jing-Lu Wang; Rui-Xia Guo; Liu-Xia Li
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2022-01-11

2.  Interventions for non-tubal ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Ying Long; Huili Zhu; Yuanyuan Hu; Licong Shen; Jing Fu; Wei Huang
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-07-01

3.  Clinical characteristics and salvage management of persistent cesarean scar pregnancy.

Authors:  Xue Ying; Wei Zheng; Li Zhao; Mi Zhou; Zhengyun Chen
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 1.730

4.  Comparison Of Three Different Treatment Methods For Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.

Authors:  Hui Fei; Xuefeng Jiang; Tian Li; Ying Pan; Hongling Guo; Xiaoyu Xu; Shanrong Shu
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  A Comparative Study on the Effects of Ketofol, Dexmedetomidine, and Isofol in Anesthesia of Candidates for Dilatation and Curettage.

Authors:  Mahzad Yousefian; Ali Mohammadian Erdi; Negin Haghshenas
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2022-01-01

6.  Clinical analysis of uterine artery embolization combined with double balloon catheter plus curettage for patients with placenta previa who underwent pregnancy termination and suffered antenatal massive hemorrhage in the 2nd trimester: Three case reports.

Authors:  Fei Tang; Shuguo Du; Yun Zhao; Guoqiang Sun; Ying Lin; Ruyan Li; Xufeng Wu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Comparison of D&C and hysteroscopy after UAE in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: A case-control study.

Authors:  Lili Cao; Zhida Qian; Lili Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 1.889

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.