Archives of gynecology

, Volume 237, Issue 3, pp 135–147 | Cite as

Ectopic pregnancy — An analysis of the etiology, diagnosis and treatment in 552 cases

  • L. Tuomivaara
  • A. Kauppila
  • J. Puolakka
Originals

Summary

An analysis of the clinical data of 552 patients treated for ectopic pregnancy during 1973–82 in our hospital showed that the prevalence of this complication rose twofold (P < 0.01) from an annual rate of 10.9 per thousand in 1973 to 20.9 per thousand in 1982. As regards parity distribution, the proportion of the 2-paras increased significantly (P < 0.05) and this increase was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than in the total population of parturients during this period. The increasing incidence of ectopic pregnancies had a significant positive correlation (P < 0.05) with the use of an intrauterine device (IUD), but not with previous or present pelvic inflammatory disease or gynaecological or abdominal surgery. Because the 158 patients with an IUD in situ (34%) had a significantly less frequent past history of salpingitis, pelvic operation, infertility, ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous abortion and had less actual pelvic inflammatory changes than the 259 patients without contraception (57%), the IUD seemed to be directly involved with the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. In the present study lower abdominal pain occurred in 97% of the patients and menstrual disorders in 93%; pelvic examination revealed adnexal mass in 63% and adnexal tenderness in 90% of the patients. Laparoscopy, a sensitive urinary pregnancy test (detection limit 75 IU/1) and culdocentesis were the most important factors in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy as evidenced by positive results in 97, 90 and 83% of the cases, respectively. Due to improved diagnostic procedures the annual rate of an unruptured tube at operation increased from 49% to 73% during the study period.

Key word

Ectopic pregnancy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aselton PJ, Stergachis A (1984) Increasing incidence of ectopic pregnancy. JAMA 4: 469Google Scholar
  2. Barnes AB, Wennberg CN, Barnes BA (1983) Ectopic pregnancy: Incidence and review of determinant factors. Obstet Gynecol Surv 6: 345–356Google Scholar
  3. Chavkin W (1982) The rise in ectopic pregnancy-exploration of possible reasons. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 20: 341–350Google Scholar
  4. Edelman DA (1979) Contraceptive practice and ectopic pregnancy. IFFP Med Bull 4: 1–3Google Scholar
  5. Erkkola R, Liukko P (1977) Intrauterine device and ectopic pregnancy. Contraception 6: 569–574Google Scholar
  6. Glebatis DM, Janerich DT (1983) Ectopic pregnancies in upstate New York. JAMA 13: 1730–1735Google Scholar
  7. Kamshed FM (1983) Ectopic pregnancy. Critical analysis of 139 cases. Minn Med 2: 83–86Google Scholar
  8. Kauppila A, Rantakylä P, Huhtaniemi I, Ylikorkala O, Seppälä M (1980) Trophoblastic markers in the differential diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 55: 560–564Google Scholar
  9. Künzig HJ, Nittner, G, Seitz E (1983) Aktuelle Aspekte in Diagnostik und Therapie. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 43: 658–663Google Scholar
  10. Meirik O (1981) Ectopic pregnancy during 1961–78 in Uppsala county, Sweden. Impact of demographic factors on overall incidence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 60: 545–548Google Scholar
  11. Meirik O, Nygren K-G (1980) Ectopic pregnancy and IUDs; Incidence, risk rate and predisposing factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 59: 425–427Google Scholar
  12. Ory HW, Women's Health Study (1981) Ectopic pregnancy and intrauterine contraceptive devices: New perspectives. Obstet Gynecol 57: 137–144Google Scholar
  13. Pagano R (1981) Ectopic pregnancy: A seven-year survey. Med J Aust 2: 586–588Google Scholar
  14. Population Reports (1982) Intrauterine devices. IUDs: An appropriate contraceptive for many women. Population Information Program. The Johns Hopkins University. Series B 4: 101–135Google Scholar
  15. Portuondo JA, Remacha MJ, Llaguno MR (1982) Ectopic pregnancy early diagnosis limitations. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 20: 371–378Google Scholar
  16. Rubin GL, Peterson HB, Dorfman SF, Layde PM, Maze JM, Ory HW, Cates W (1983) Ectopic pregnancy in the United States 1970 through 1978. JAMA 13: 1725–1729Google Scholar
  17. Savolainen E, Saksela E (1978) Ectopic pregnancy. Relationship to the preceding contraception. Ann Chir Gynaecol 67: 198–202Google Scholar
  18. Seppälä M, Ranta T, Tontti K, Stenman U-H, Chard T (1980) Use of a rapid hCG-beta-subunit radioimmunoassay in acute gynecological emergencies. Lancet I: 165–166Google Scholar
  19. Shiono PH, Harlap S, Pellergrin F (1982) Ectopic pregnancies: Rising incidence rates in Northern California. Am J Public Health 2: 173–175Google Scholar
  20. Sivin I (1983) IUDs and ectopic pregnancy. Stud Fam Plann 2: 57–63Google Scholar
  21. Swolin K (1980) A tubal surgeon's recommendations for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. J Reprod Med 25: 38–40Google Scholar
  22. Weström L, Bengtsson LPh, Mårdh P-A (1981) Incidence, trends and risks of ectopic pregnancy in a population of women. Br Med J 3: 15–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Tuomivaara
    • 1
  • A. Kauppila
    • 1
  • J. Puolakka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations