Literature DB >> 28472704

The Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy with Uterine Artery Embolization and Curettage as Compared to Transvaginal Hysterotomy.

Huihui Chen1, Jieru Zhou1, Husheng Wang1, Weilin Tan1, Min Yao1, Xipeng Wang2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the outcome and menstrual status in patients after treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) by transvaginal hysterotomy or uterine artery embolization combined with uterine curettage. STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. An analysis of CSP patients was performed using records from Shanghai First Maternity & Infant Hospital affiliated with Tongji University for the period between July 16, 2014 and January 22, 2016. Twenty-seven patients were treated with transvaginal hysterotomy and in this group, 49 patients received uterine curettage after UAE. The clinical information on these patients and clinical outcomes especially the status of menstruation were reviewed.
RESULTS: There was only one complication in transvaginal hysterotomy group, while 3 cases of villus residue occurred in UAE group. Nineteen patients (70.4%) in transvaginal hysterotomy group self-assessed their menstrual volumes, which had no remarkable changes; 6 patients (22.2%) felt that their menstrual volumes had decreased. Thirty-five patients in UAE group (71.4%) reported that their menstrual volumes decreased (P<0.05). The range of pictorial blood loss score was 55-82 in transvaginal hysterotomy group and 9-74 in UAE group, and the mean pictorial blood loss score was decreased from 68.4 to 65.8 in transvaginal hysterotomy group (a 3.2±4.4% reduction) and from 66.4 to 38.8 in UAE group (a 41.7±26.4% reduction) (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal hysterotomy appears to be more advantageous than UAE combined with uterine curettage. The menstrual interval and duration changed significantly in UAE group.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean scar pregnancy; Menstrual status; Transvaginal hysterotomy; Uterine artery embolization

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28472704     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  5 in total

1.  Experience in management of cesarean scar pregnancy and outcomes in a single center.

Authors:  Dong-Fang Wu; Hong-Xia Zhang; Wen He; Xin Liu; Hai-Man Song; Teng-Fei Yu
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2022-10       Impact factor: 1.573

2.  When to perform curettage after uterine artery embolization for cesarean scar pregnancy: a clinical study.

Authors:  Qiao Wang; Hongling Peng; Xia Zhao; Xiaorong Qi
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 3.007

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.  Prophylactic uterine artery embolization in second-trimester pregnancy termination with complete placenta previa.

Authors:  Yinfeng Wang; Changchang Hu; Ningpin Pan; Chaolu Chen; Ruijin Wu
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-10-14       Impact factor: 1.671

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.