基于三分类系统的剖宫产瘢痕妊娠手术治疗:回顾性分析。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1186/s12884-024-06887-0
Ruyue Ma, Shuang Chen, Weihua Xu, Ruirui Zhang, Yu Zheng, Jianing Wang, Lei Zhang, Rujun Chen
{"title":"基于三分类系统的剖宫产瘢痕妊娠手术治疗:回顾性分析。","authors":"Ruyue Ma, Shuang Chen, Weihua Xu, Ruirui Zhang, Yu Zheng, Jianing Wang, Lei Zhang, Rujun Chen","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06887-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), a distinct form of ectopic pregnancy, presents challenges in effective management. It is categorized into three subtypes according to the location of placental implantation and the thickness of the myometrium at the uterine scar. Nevertheless, the optimal choice of treatment modalities for these subtypes remains largely unexamined.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the cases of 130 patients diagnosed with CSP who underwent diverse treatment approaches, namely ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage (D&C), hysteroscopic surgery alone or in combination with laparoscopic surgery (HCoLC), or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage. Clinical data were meticulously retrieved from medical records and follow-up data, and a comparative analysis of relevant indicators was carried out across the different CSP subtypes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From January 2017 to December 2021, 35 patients underwent D&C, 85 underwent HCoLC, and 10 received UAE as a pretreatment. In the D&C group, the success rates for Type I and Type II CSP were 64.29% (18/28) and 14.28% (1/7), respectively. Significant differences were observed between the success and failure groups in terms of gestational sac size and clinical classification. Compared to Type I CSP, Type II CSP exhibited significantly longer surgical durations and higher hospitalization costs (P < 0.05). Three patients classified as Type III underwent simultaneous hysteroscopic evacuation of cesarean scar pregnancy and laparoscopic repair of the cesarean scar defect, achieving a 100% success rate in their initial treatment. HCoLC showed no significant differences in surgical duration and hospitalization costs but had higher success rates and shorter hospital stays compared to the D&C and UAE groups (P < 0.05). The UAE group had significantly longer surgical durations, higher hospitalization costs, and a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P < 0.05). However, these factors did not result in improved surgical success rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The classification of CSP and the measurement of gestational sac are of crucial importance in determining the most appropriate surgical intervention strategy. For patients diagnosed with Type I CSP, D&C and hysteroscopy are reliable treatment choices. In cases with larger gestational sacs or Type II CSP, hysteroscopy, either alone or in combination with laparoscopy, is regarded as a reliable and effective treatment approach. In patients with type III CSP, lesion excision with uterine repair is the recommended treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11494763/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy based on the three-category system: a retrospective analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ruyue Ma, Shuang Chen, Weihua Xu, Ruirui Zhang, Yu Zheng, Jianing Wang, Lei Zhang, Rujun Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12884-024-06887-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), a distinct form of ectopic pregnancy, presents challenges in effective management. It is categorized into three subtypes according to the location of placental implantation and the thickness of the myometrium at the uterine scar. Nevertheless, the optimal choice of treatment modalities for these subtypes remains largely unexamined.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the cases of 130 patients diagnosed with CSP who underwent diverse treatment approaches, namely ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage (D&C), hysteroscopic surgery alone or in combination with laparoscopic surgery (HCoLC), or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage. Clinical data were meticulously retrieved from medical records and follow-up data, and a comparative analysis of relevant indicators was carried out across the different CSP subtypes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From January 2017 to December 2021, 35 patients underwent D&C, 85 underwent HCoLC, and 10 received UAE as a pretreatment. In the D&C group, the success rates for Type I and Type II CSP were 64.29% (18/28) and 14.28% (1/7), respectively. Significant differences were observed between the success and failure groups in terms of gestational sac size and clinical classification. Compared to Type I CSP, Type II CSP exhibited significantly longer surgical durations and higher hospitalization costs (P < 0.05). Three patients classified as Type III underwent simultaneous hysteroscopic evacuation of cesarean scar pregnancy and laparoscopic repair of the cesarean scar defect, achieving a 100% success rate in their initial treatment. HCoLC showed no significant differences in surgical duration and hospitalization costs but had higher success rates and shorter hospital stays compared to the D&C and UAE groups (P < 0.05). The UAE group had significantly longer surgical durations, higher hospitalization costs, and a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P < 0.05). However, these factors did not result in improved surgical success rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The classification of CSP and the measurement of gestational sac are of crucial importance in determining the most appropriate surgical intervention strategy. For patients diagnosed with Type I CSP, D&C and hysteroscopy are reliable treatment choices. In cases with larger gestational sacs or Type II CSP, hysteroscopy, either alone or in combination with laparoscopy, is regarded as a reliable and effective treatment approach. In patients with type III CSP, lesion excision with uterine repair is the recommended treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11494763/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06887-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06887-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:剖宫产瘢痕妊娠(CSP)是异位妊娠的一种特殊形式,给有效治疗带来了挑战。根据胎盘植入的位置和子宫疤痕处子宫肌层的厚度,可将其分为三个亚型。然而,针对这些亚型的最佳治疗方式选择在很大程度上仍未得到研究:在这项回顾性分析中,我们调查了 130 例确诊为 CSP 的患者,他们接受了不同的治疗方法,即超声引导下扩张刮宫术(D&C)、宫腔镜手术(HCoLC)或宫腔镜手术(HCoLC)、子宫动脉栓塞术(UAE)后刮宫术。从病历和随访资料中细致地检索了临床数据,并对不同CSP亚型的相关指标进行了对比分析:2017年1月至2021年12月,35名患者接受了D&C,85名患者接受了HCoLC,10名患者接受了UAE作为预处理。在D&C组中,I型和II型CSP的成功率分别为64.29%(18/28)和14.28%(1/7)。成功组和失败组在孕囊大小和临床分级方面存在显著差异。与 I 型 CSP 相比,II 型 CSP 的手术时间明显更长,住院费用更高(PCSP 的分类和孕囊的测量对于确定最合适的手术干预策略至关重要。对于确诊为 I 型 CSP 的患者,顺产和宫腔镜检查是可靠的治疗选择。对于孕囊较大或II型CSP的病例,宫腔镜检查,无论是单独还是与腹腔镜检查相结合,都被认为是一种可靠而有效的治疗方法。对于 III 型 CSP 患者,建议采用病灶切除加子宫修补的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy based on the three-category system: a retrospective analysis.

Background: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), a distinct form of ectopic pregnancy, presents challenges in effective management. It is categorized into three subtypes according to the location of placental implantation and the thickness of the myometrium at the uterine scar. Nevertheless, the optimal choice of treatment modalities for these subtypes remains largely unexamined.

Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the cases of 130 patients diagnosed with CSP who underwent diverse treatment approaches, namely ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage (D&C), hysteroscopic surgery alone or in combination with laparoscopic surgery (HCoLC), or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage. Clinical data were meticulously retrieved from medical records and follow-up data, and a comparative analysis of relevant indicators was carried out across the different CSP subtypes.

Results: From January 2017 to December 2021, 35 patients underwent D&C, 85 underwent HCoLC, and 10 received UAE as a pretreatment. In the D&C group, the success rates for Type I and Type II CSP were 64.29% (18/28) and 14.28% (1/7), respectively. Significant differences were observed between the success and failure groups in terms of gestational sac size and clinical classification. Compared to Type I CSP, Type II CSP exhibited significantly longer surgical durations and higher hospitalization costs (P < 0.05). Three patients classified as Type III underwent simultaneous hysteroscopic evacuation of cesarean scar pregnancy and laparoscopic repair of the cesarean scar defect, achieving a 100% success rate in their initial treatment. HCoLC showed no significant differences in surgical duration and hospitalization costs but had higher success rates and shorter hospital stays compared to the D&C and UAE groups (P < 0.05). The UAE group had significantly longer surgical durations, higher hospitalization costs, and a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P < 0.05). However, these factors did not result in improved surgical success rates.

Conclusion: The classification of CSP and the measurement of gestational sac are of crucial importance in determining the most appropriate surgical intervention strategy. For patients diagnosed with Type I CSP, D&C and hysteroscopy are reliable treatment choices. In cases with larger gestational sacs or Type II CSP, hysteroscopy, either alone or in combination with laparoscopy, is regarded as a reliable and effective treatment approach. In patients with type III CSP, lesion excision with uterine repair is the recommended treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
期刊最新文献
Determinants of retroplacental hematoma at the Maradi mother and child health center, Niger: a case‒control study. Providers' perspective on vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a qualitative systematic review. The impact of scaling and root planning combined with mouthwash during pregnancy on preterm birth and low birth weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of peripartum cardiomyopathy in North Africa: insights from a single-center observational study in Tunisia. Perspectives of midwives on respectful maternity care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1