Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selection of a correct treatment protocol in caesarean scar pregnancies

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

Abstract

Objective

This study aims at assessing the effectiveness of various treatment protocols with the help of some parameters in caesarean scar pregnancies.

Methods

A total of 26 patients were assessed in the study. The patients were divided into 4 groups. Group 1 consisted of those who had a wedge resection (n = 7), group 2 those who had a suction curettage (n = 10), group 3 those who had a systemic methotrexate (MTX) (n = 5) and group 4 those who had a systemic + local MTX (n = 4). The ßHcg half-lives, haemoglobin levels at the time of admittance and discharge, and hospital stays of the groups were compared.

Results

The difference between group 1 and group 4 was found significant (p = 0.002) with respect to days of hospital stay. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to ßHcg half-lives and haemoglobin values.

Conclusion

The results of our study showed that there were no significant differences between treatment outcomes when appropriate protocols were employed. Therefore, the important point in CSPs is to assess correctly the type of CSP, the myometrial thickness and the patient’s hemodynamic condition and select the most appropriate protocol accordingly rather than trying to establish a single standard treatment protocol.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zizza A, Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Barbone E, Stark M, De Donno A, Guido M (2011) Caesarean section in the world: a new ecological approach. J Prev Med Hyg 52(4):161–173

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH (2010) Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ 341:c5065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Mathews TJ, Osterman MJ (2010) Births: final data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 59(1):1, 3–71

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM (1997) The association of placenta previa with history of cesarean delivery and abortion: a metaanalysis. Am J ObstetGynecol 177(5):1071–1078

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, Lin MY, Tsai YL, Hwang JL (2004) Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 23(3):247–253

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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. ReprodBiolEndocrinol 13:126

    Google Scholar 

  7. Maymon R, Svirsky R, Smorgick N, Mendlovic S, Halperin R, Gilad K, Tovbin J (2011) Fertility performance and obstetric outcomes among women with previous cesarean scar pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 30(9):1179–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bujold E (2012) The optimal uterine closure technique during cesarean. N Am J Med Sci 4(8):362–363

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Riaz RM, Williams TR, Craig BM, Myers DT (2015) Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: imaging features, current treatment options, and clinical outcomes. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2589–2599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vial Y, Petignat P, Hohlfeld P (2000) Pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 16(6):592–593

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 ObstetGynecol 21(3):220–227

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Huanxiao Z, Shuqin C, Hongye J, Hongzhe X, Gang N, Chengkang X, Xiaoming G, Shuzhong Y (2015) Transvaginal hysterotomy for cesarean scar pregnancy in 40 consecutive cases. GynecolSurg 12(1):45–51

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ben-Nagi J, Walker A, Jurkovic D, Yazbek J, Aplin JD (2009) Effect of cesarean delivery on the endometrium. Int J GynaecolObstet 106(1):30–34

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rheinboldt M, Osborn D, Delproposto Z (2015) Cesarean section scar ectopic pregnancy: a clinical case series. J Ultrasound 18(2):191–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang Y, Gu Y, Wang JM, Li Y (2013) Analysis of cases with cesarean scar pregnancy. J ObstetGynaecol Res 39(1):195–202

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 ObstetGynecol 207(1):44 e1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Holland MG, Bienstock JL (2008) Recurrent ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean scar. ObstetGynecol 111(2 Pt 2):541–545

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fylstra DL (2002) Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a review. ObstetGynecolSurv 57(8):537–543

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shi J, Qin J, Wang W, Zhang H (2014) Clinical study on 57 cases with caesarean scar pregnancy. Zhonghua Fu Chan KeZaZhi 49(1):18–21

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  21. Seow KM, Cheng WC, Chuang J, Lee C, Tsai YL, Hwang JL (2000) Methotrexate for cesarean scar pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. A Case Rep J Reprod Med 45(9):754–757

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu XQ, Zhang HW, Fang XL, Ding H, Piao L, Joseph HS (2015) Factors associated with successful transabdominal sonography-guided dilation and curettage for early cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J GynaecolObstet 131(3):281–284

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gonzalez N, Tulandi T (2017) Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(5):731–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Bujold E, Nesbitt-Hawes E, Deans R, Abbott J (2017) Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(6):915–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jurkovic D, Knez J, Appiah A, Farahani L, Mavrelos D, Ross JA (2016) Surgical treatment of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided suction curettage. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 47(4):511–517

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang S, Li Y, Ma X (2020) Lower uterine segment thickness in assessing whether cesarean scar pregnancy patients could be treated with suction curettage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 33(19):3332–3337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Özdamar Ö, Doğer E, Arlıer S, Çakıroğlu Y, Ergin RN, Köpük ŞY, Çalışkan E (2016) Exogenous cesarean scar pregnancies managed by suction curettage alone or in combination with other therapeutic procedures: a series of 33 cases and analysis of complication profile. J ObstetGynaecol Res 42(8):927–935

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Orhan Altınboğa, Betül Yakıştıran, Seyit Ahmet Erol, Yüksel Oğuz, Cavidan Gülerman, Şevki Çelen & Ali Turhan Çağlar

  2. Department of Statistics, Ankara University, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Batuhan Bakırarar

Authors
  1. Orhan Altınboğa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Betül Yakıştıran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyit Ahmet Erol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yüksel Oğuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Batuhan Bakırarar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cavidan Gülerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Şevki Çelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ali Turhan Çağlar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orhan Altınboğa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The funding organizations played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

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

Altınboğa, O., Yakıştıran, B., Erol, S.A. et al. Selection of a correct treatment protocol in caesarean scar pregnancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302, 1375–1380 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05800-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05800-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation