3,775
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy: 11-year experience at a medical center

, , , &
Article: 2162818 | Received 21 May 2022, Accepted 21 Dec 2022, Published online: 04 Jan 2023
 

Abstract

Background

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a long-term complication after cesarean section that can cause severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Although a variety of treatments have been described, there is no consensus as to the optimal management approach. Many grading systems for CSP have been proposed, among which the classification made by the consensus of Chinese experts in 2016 was shown to provide improved treatment guidance for clinical practice. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the success rate of different treatments for each type of CSP as classified according to the Chinese Expert’s Consensus (2016), and to develop a management strategy for CSP.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed among patients diagnosed with CSP at Shandong Provincial Hospital between January 2009 and December 2019. We reviewed clinical characteristics, treatment methods, and subsequent outcomes; and analyzed these endpoints using the statistical software package SPSS 22.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

For type I CSP, systemic methotrexate (MTX) administration exhibited a success rate of 79.2% for type Ia and 14.3% for type Ib. Local and systemic MTX administration success rates were 88.9% for type Ia and 66.7% for type Ib. Dilation and curettage (D&C), curettage after uterine artery embolization (UAE + C), and hysteroscopic curettage (H + C) were 100% successful. For type II, UAE + C, H + C, and laparoscopy combined with hysteroscopic curettage (L + H+C) were 100% successful. D&C had a success rate of 97.0% for type IIa and 88.9% for type IIb. The success rate of systemic MTX administration was 52.0% for type IIa and 62.5% for type IIb. Both UAE + C and L + H+C had 100% success rates for type IIIa CSPs, while for type IIIb, the success rate was 87.9% for UAE + C vs. 96.6% for L + H+C.

Conclusions

For type I CSPs, D&C was quick, easy, and safe; for type II, H + C was more suitable. For type III and some type II patients who wished to undergo simultaneous repair of the cesarean defect, L + H+C was the optimal method. UAE can be used as a complementary option instead of a prophylactic measure, and when difficulties with endoscopic surgeries were encountered, conversion to laparotomy was the ultimate treatment.

Acknowledgements

This study would not be possible without the help of Wei Wang’s team of ultrasonic department, who provided the ultrasound images to support the diagnosis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research was supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Shandong Province (Grant No. 2019GSF108183).