E-ISSN: 2619-9467

Contents    Cover    Publication Date: 15 Mar 2023
Year 2023 - Volume 33 - Issue 1

Open Access

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
850 Viewed657 Downloaded

Cesarean Scar Pregnancies and Reproductive Outcomes: A Single Center Experience

Full Text PDF  
JCOG. 2023;33(1):36-42
DOI: 10.5336/jcog.2022-93710
Article Language: EN
Copyright Ⓒ 2020 by Türkiye Klinikleri. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ABSTRACT
Objective: The rising rate of cesarean delivery increases the occurrence of cesarean scar pregnancies (CSP). Early diagnosis and treatment of CSP have become the subject of considerable interest in recent years because of the risk of life-threatening uterine bleeding and rupture. The aim of this study was to share the results of ultrasonography (USG)-guided dilation and curettage (D&C) and hysterotomy in treating early CSP and the long-term reproductive results in these cases. Material and Methods: Patients diagnosed with CSP admitted to the perinatology clinic between January 2016 and April 2020 were included in this study. USG-guided D&C was recommended for all patients diagnosed with CSP in the first trimester (≤12 gestational weeks). Hysterotomy was recommended for patients who could not undergo D&C. All patients' demographic data and procedure results were retrieved retrospectively from electronic records, and reproductive anamneses after the procedure were obtained from patient files and telephone calls. Results: Sixty-three patients who underwent USG-guided D&C and hysterotomy were included in the study. While D&C was successful in 93.65% (n=59) of these patients, 6.35% (n=4) underwent hysterotomy. In the USG-guided D&C group, the infertility rate was 15.78% (n=6), the rate of the recurrent scars was 9.3% (n=3), and the rate of placenta accreta spectrum was 6.25% (n=2). The term healthy pregnancy rate was 64%. Conclusion: In experienced hands, USG-guided D&C can be considered the first choice in early scar pregnancies. We believe that similar reproductive results would be obtained when D&C and other treatment modalities were compared in CSP treatment.
REFERENCES:
  1. Chen YQ, Liu HS, Li WX, Deng C, Hu XW, Kuang PJ. Efficacy of transvaginal debridement and repair surgery for cesarean scar pregnancy: a cohort study compared with uterine artery embolism. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(11):21187-93. [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  2. Fu LP. Therapeutic approach for the cesarean scar pregnancy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(18):e0476. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  3. Birch Petersen K, Hoffmann E, Rifbjerg Larsen C, Svarre Nielsen H. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):958-67. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  4. Özcan HÇ, Uğur MG, Balat Ö, Sucu S, Mustafa A, Bayramoğlu Tepe N, et al. Is ultrasound-guided suction curettage a reliable option for treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy? A cross-sectional retrospective study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(22):2953-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  5. Gupta S, Pineda G, Rubin S, Timor-Tritsch IE. Four consecutive recurrent cesarean scar pregnancies in a single patient. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(10):1878-80. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  6. Özdamar Ö, Doğer E, Arlıer S, Çakıroğlu Y, Ergin RN, Köpük ŞY, et al. 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. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2016;42(8):927-35. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  7. Torre A, Paillusson B, Fain V, Labauge P, Pelage JP, Fauconnier A. Uterine artery embolization for severe symptomatic fibroids: effects on fertility and symptoms. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):490-501. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  8. Xiao J, Zhang S, Wang F, Wang Y, Shi Z, Zhou X, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: noninvasive and effective treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(4):356.e1-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  9. Delplanque S, Le Lous M, Flévin M, Bauville E, Moquet PY, Dion L, et al. Effectiveness of conservative medical treatment for non-tubal ectopic pregnancies: a multicenter study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020:101762. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  10. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Bujold E, Nesbitt-Hawes E, Deans R, Abbott J. Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(6):915-25. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  11. Kanat-Pektas M, Bodur S, Dundar O, Bakır VL. Systematic review: what is the best first-line approach for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy? Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55(2):263-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  12. Jurkovic D, Knez J, Appiah A, Farahani L, Mavrelos D, Ross JA. Surgical treatment of Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided suction curettage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(4):511-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  13. Zhang Y, Chen L, Zhou M, Li Y, Luo J, Chen Z. Risk factors of persistent cesarean scar pregnancy after dilation and curettage: a matched case-control study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(2):237-42. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  14. Qian ZD, Weng Y, Du YJ, Wang CF, Huang LL. Management of persistent caesarean scar pregnancy after curettage treatment failure. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2017;17:208. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  15. Bağlı İ, Bakır MS, Doğan Y, Erdem S, Taşın C, Demirel NU, et al. Is suction curettage an effective treatment alternative for cesarean scar pregnancies? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;258:193-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  16. Polat I, Ekiz A, Acar DK, Kaya B, Ozkose B, Ozdemir C, et al. Suction curettage as first line treatment in cases with cesarean scar pregnancy: feasibility and effectiveness in early pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(7):1066-71. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  17. Gao L, Huang Z, Zhang X, Zhou N, Huang X, Wang X. Reproductive outcomes following cesarean scar pregnancy - a case series and review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;200:102-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  18. Ben Nagi J, Helmy S, Ofili-Yebovi D, Yazbek J, Sawyer E, Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes of women with a previous history of Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):2012-5. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  19. Nguyen-Xuan HT, Lousquy R, Barranger E. Diagnostic, traitement et suivi des grossesses implantées sur cicatrice de césarienne [Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014;42(7-8):483-9. French. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  20. Morlando M, Buca D, Timor-Tritsch I, Cali G, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Monteagudo A, et al. Reproductive outcome after cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(10):1278-89. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  21. Seow KM, Hwang JL, Tsai YL, Huang LW, Lin YH, Hsieh BC. Subsequent pregnancy outcome after conservative treatment of a previous cesarean scar pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(12):1167-72. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  22. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):14-29. Erratum in: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(4):371-4. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  23. Tang Q, Qin Y, Zhou Q, Tang J, Zhou Q, Qiao J, et al. Hysteroscopic treatment and reproductive outcomes in cesarean scar pregnancy: experience at a single institution. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(6):1559-66. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  24. Xu X, Li D, Yang L, Jing X, Kong X, Chen D, et al. Surgical outcomes of cesarean scar pregnancy: an 8-year experience at a single institution. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303(5):1223-33. [Crossref]  [PubMed]