Cargando…

A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage

Background: There is no consensus on a standardized therapy for type II cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP II). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety and compare costs associated with transvaginal removal and repair (TRR) of uterine defect for CSP II to those of uterin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cao, Shanshan, Qiu, Guijing, Zhang, Peipei, Wang, Xinyan, Wu, Qing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258109/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34239887
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.654956
_version_ 1783718439567753216
author Cao, Shanshan
Qiu, Guijing
Zhang, Peipei
Wang, Xinyan
Wu, Qing
author_facet Cao, Shanshan
Qiu, Guijing
Zhang, Peipei
Wang, Xinyan
Wu, Qing
author_sort Cao, Shanshan
collection PubMed
description Background: There is no consensus on a standardized therapy for type II cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP II). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety and compare costs associated with transvaginal removal and repair (TRR) of uterine defect for CSP II to those of uterine artery embolization (UAE) and curettage. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that included 87 patients diagnosed with CSP II and treated by performing UAE in combination with curettage and hysteroscopy (n = 53), or TRR (n = 34). Clinical data and outcomes were analyzed. Results: UAE and TRR groups exhibited similar success rates. The TRR group had significantly lower complication rates (30.19 vs. 8.82%, P < 0.05) and lower total costs (13,765.89 ± 2,029.12 vs. 9,063.82 ± 954.67, P < 0.05) than the UAE group. The anterior myometrium of the lower uterine segment was relatively thicker after performing TRR, and no patient suffered from recurrent CSP II. The proportion of patients in the TRR group who had full-term delivery without uterine rupture was 88.24% (30/34), while four patients failed to pregnancy. Conclusion: TRR is a safe and effective treatment method for patients with CSP II and presents a highly cost-effective outcome, especially for patients with future fertility desire.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8258109
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82581092021-07-07 A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage Cao, Shanshan Qiu, Guijing Zhang, Peipei Wang, Xinyan Wu, Qing Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine Background: There is no consensus on a standardized therapy for type II cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP II). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety and compare costs associated with transvaginal removal and repair (TRR) of uterine defect for CSP II to those of uterine artery embolization (UAE) and curettage. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that included 87 patients diagnosed with CSP II and treated by performing UAE in combination with curettage and hysteroscopy (n = 53), or TRR (n = 34). Clinical data and outcomes were analyzed. Results: UAE and TRR groups exhibited similar success rates. The TRR group had significantly lower complication rates (30.19 vs. 8.82%, P < 0.05) and lower total costs (13,765.89 ± 2,029.12 vs. 9,063.82 ± 954.67, P < 0.05) than the UAE group. The anterior myometrium of the lower uterine segment was relatively thicker after performing TRR, and no patient suffered from recurrent CSP II. The proportion of patients in the TRR group who had full-term delivery without uterine rupture was 88.24% (30/34), while four patients failed to pregnancy. Conclusion: TRR is a safe and effective treatment method for patients with CSP II and presents a highly cost-effective outcome, especially for patients with future fertility desire. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8258109/ /pubmed/34239887 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.654956 Text en Copyright © 2021 Cao, Qiu, Zhang, Wang and Wu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Cao, Shanshan
Qiu, Guijing
Zhang, Peipei
Wang, Xinyan
Wu, Qing
A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage
title A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage
title_full A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage
title_fullStr A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage
title_short A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage
title_sort comparison of transvaginal removal and repair of uterine defect for type ii cesarean scar pregnancy and uterine artery embolization combined with curettage
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8258109/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34239887
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.654956
work_keys_str_mv AT caoshanshan acomparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT qiuguijing acomparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT zhangpeipei acomparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT wangxinyan acomparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT wuqing acomparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT caoshanshan comparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT qiuguijing comparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT zhangpeipei comparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT wangxinyan comparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage
AT wuqing comparisonoftransvaginalremovalandrepairofuterinedefectfortypeiicesareanscarpregnancyanduterinearteryembolizationcombinedwithcurettage