Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different treatment modalities for cesarean scar pregnancies: a single-center experience and literature review

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) remains a sporadic form of ectopic pregnancy associated with a severe life-threatening condition. There is no consensus on the treatment modality or a generally accepted guideline in CSP. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of the different treatment modalities used in CSP treatment at a single center, as well as a literature review.

Methods

This is a retrospective case series study that was conducted; all women who diagnosed with CSP between January 2013 and November 2019 at Women's Specialized Hospital, King Fahad Medical City. The clinical characteristics, diagnosis, different treatment modalities, and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Twenty-seven cases of CSP identified during the study period. The median maternal age was 38 years (range 23–47 years). The gestational age at diagnosis ranged between 5 weeks and 5 days to 13 weeks and 6 days. All diagnoses were made by ultrasound. The absence of embryonic cardiac activity was seen in 10 cases (37.03%). The most commonly used method for first-line treatment was medical treatment. A total of 14 patients (51.85%) were treated with systemic methotrexate (MTX), three (11.1%) intra-sac and systemic MTX, and two (7.4%) intra-cardiac potassium chloride (KCl) along with systemic MTX, five (18.51%) cases had expectant management, one case initially treated with Laparotomy Wedge resection, and one case treated with uterine artery embolization (UAE) and systemic MTX. A total of 20 (74.07%) patients were treated successfully with first-line treatment. Seven (25.92%) patients needed additional second-line treatment. Among them, only one case had surgical intervention. None of the women in the medical treatment group experienced any side effects. Based on ANOVA results, there is no considerable relationship between the mean time of resolution of β-hCG and four treatment modalities for CSP (p = 0.2406). There was no statistical significance when the fetal viability at the time of diagnosis was compared to the need for second-line treatment of CSP (p = 0.58).

Conclusion

The treatment of CSP should be individualized based on risk factors. Diagnosis and management of CSP need expertise and a multidisciplinary approach to prevent complications. Early diagnosis and management of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy remains the mainstay for a successful outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CSP:

Cesarean scar pregnancy

MTX:

Methotrexate

BMI:

Body mass index

β-HCG:

Beta human chorionic gonadotrophin

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

UAE:

Uterine artery embolization

References

  1. Fylstra DL (2002) Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 57:537–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, Schneider D, Herman A (2004) Ectopic pregnancies in a Caesarean scar: review of the medical approach to an iatrogenic complication. Hum Reprod Update 10(6):515–523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Salim R, Elson CJ (2003) First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:220–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lai YM, Lee JD, Lee CL et al (1995) Ectopic pregnancy embedded in the myometrium of a previous cesarean section scar. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 74:573–576

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M (2006) Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis and management. Obstet Gynecol 107(6):1373–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Petrides A, Dinglas C, Chavez M, Taylor S, Mahboob S (2016) Revisiting ectopic pregnancy : a pictorial essay. J Clin Imaging Sci 4(3):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D (2007) Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG 114(3):253–263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sinha P, Mishra MJ (2012) Caesarean scar pregnancy: a precursor of placenta percreta/accreta. J Obstet Gynaecol 32:621–623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Devarajan S, Datta S (2014) Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 24:153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seow K, Huang L, Lin Y et al (2004) Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23(3):247–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ouyang Y, Li X, Yi Y, Gong F, Lin G, Lu G (2015) First-trimester diagnosis and management of Cesarean scar pregnancies after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a retrospective clinical analysis of 12 cases. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 13:126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vial Y, Petignat P, Hohlfeld P (2000) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 16(6):592–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang Y, Gu Y, Wang JM, Li Y (2013) Analysis of cases with cesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 39:195–202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA (2012) The diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. El Guindi W, Alalfy M, Abasy A, Ellithy A, Nabil A, Abdalfatah O et al (2013) A report of four cases of caesarean scar pregnancy in a period of 24 months. J Med Diagn Methods 2:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jayaram PM, Okunoye GO, Konje J (2017) Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: diagnostic challenges and management options. Obstet Gynecol 19:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Calì G, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J et al (2018) Outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51(2):169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bodur S, Özdamar Ö, Kılıç S et al (2015) The efficacy of the systemic methotrexate treatment in caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: a quantitative review of English literature. J Obstet Gynaecol 35(3):290–296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Godin PA, Bassil S, Donnez J (1997) An ectopic pregnancy developing in a previous caesarian section scar. Fertil Steril 67:398–400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A (2012) Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:14–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu R, Klein M, Mahboob S, Gupta M et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging as an adjunct to ultrasound in evaluating cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. J Clin Imaging Sci 3:16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fylstra DL, Pound-Chang T, Grant MM, Cooper A, Miller KM (2002) Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean delivery scar: a case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:302–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu X, Zhang X, Zhu J et al (2012) Caesarean scar pregnancy: comparative efficacy and safety of treatment by uterine artery chemoembolization and systemic methotrexate injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 161:75–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shen L, Tan A, Zhu H et al (2012) Bilateral uterine artery chemoembolization with methotrexate for cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(386):e1-6

    Google Scholar 

  25. Birch Petersen K, Hoffmann E, Rifbjerg Larsen C, Svarre NH (2016) Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. Fertil Steril 105:958–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was used in this conduct of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reproductive Endocrine and Infertility Medicine Department, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Dania Al-Jaroudi

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Saud Aboudi

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia

    Saud Aboudi

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, HealthPlus Fertility and Women’s Health Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Saeed Baradwan

Authors
  1. Dania Al-Jaroudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saud Aboudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeed Baradwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have contributed to conception and design of the study, drafting the article, revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors have approved the final article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeed Baradwan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board committee in king Fahad medical city (Approval No.19-661).

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required and was waived by the institutional review board approval.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Jaroudi, D., Aboudi, S. & Baradwan, S. Different treatment modalities for cesarean scar pregnancies: a single-center experience and literature review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 303, 1143–1151 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05831-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05831-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation