Clinical efficacy and safety analysis of different treatment options for Cervical pregnancy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Ultrasound images obtained from a patient with CP. A. A sagittal of a gestational sac in the cervix. B. Transverse view of a gestational sac in the cervix.

Figure 2. MRI from a patient with cervical pregnancy. (A) A sagittal view of T2-Weighted image showing a gestational sac in the cervix (red arrow). (B) A sagittal view of contrast enhanced MRI showing no enhancement in the gestational sac.

Figure 3. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound obtained from a patient with CP treated with HIFU. (A) Blood supply around the embedding area of the GS in the previous cervical section (red arrow) before HIFU ablation; (B) No blood supply around the embedding area of the GS in the previous cervical (red arrow) after HIFU ablation.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics among the patients in UAE, curettage, and HIFU groups.

Variable	UAE group	Curettage group	HIFU group	p Value among the three groups	p Value for UAE vs curettage	p Value for UAE vs HIFU	P value for HIFU vs curettage
Case	31	34	9
Mean age (year)	33.29 ± 5.50	33.56 ± 5.52	32.89 ± 5.75	0.95
Gravidity(times)	3.52 ± 1.31	3.12 ± 1.51	2.67 ± 1.87	0.27
Parity(times)	0.84 ± 0.73	0.56 ± 0.56	0.67 ± 0.87	0.26
Abortion (times)	1.65 ± 1.02	1.56 ± 1.35	1.00 ± 1.12	0.36
Preoperative hemoglobin(g/l)	120.68 ± 9.12	119.35 ± 8.86	116.22 ± 6.61	0.40
Gestational age (D)	51.77 ± 10.93	45.91 ± 7.60	43.89 ± 3.22	0.012	0.047	0.003	0.560
Diameter of gestational sac (cm)	2.89 ± 1.22	1.22 ± 0.54	1.30 ± 0.24	0.000	0.00	0.00	0.893
Preoperative β-hCG(IU/L)	27583.0 (11424.0,73028.0)	4271.5(1795.06973.5)	8304.0 (3832.5, 28666.5)	0.000	0.000	0.187	0.267
Cardiac pulsation (%)	(16/31) 51.61%	(4/34) 11.76%	(5/9) 55.56%	0.001	0.001	0.835	0.004

Table 2. Comparing treatment and follow-up results among the UAE, curettage, and HIFU groups.

Variable	UAE group	Curettage group	HIFU group	p Values among the three groups	p Value for UAE vs curettage	p Value for UAE vs HIFU	p Value for HIFU vs curettage
Case	31	34	9
Hospitalization costs (RMB)	16,588.52 + 2293.26	6286.09 + 1459.49	13,282.00 + 1394.83	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Hospital days (D)	7.84 + 2.77	5.82 + 2.24	5.11 + 1.90	0.001	0.004	0.013	1.000
Menstrual recovery interval (D)	52.77 + 24.57	25.62 + 3.64	27.67 + 5.85	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.714
β-hCG decline rate (％)	67 + 22	74 + 14	52 + 11	0.005	0.104	0.032	0.001
Decrease in hemoglobin (g/l)	14.13 + 11.2	12.38 + 7.804	7.67 + 3.041	0.176
Blood loss during curettage (ml)	15(5,35)	20(20,50)	15(7.5,30)	0.015	0.017	1.000	0.248
Retained products of conception (%)	(8/31) 25.80%	(0/34) 0.00%	(1/9) 11.11%	0.003	0.002	0.654	0.209
Intrauterine adhesions (%)	(8/31) 25.80%	(2/34) 5.88%	(0/9) 0.00%	0.044	0.026	0.088	1.000
Placement of uterine Foley balloon	(4/31) 12.9%	(4/34) 11.8%	(0/9) 0.00%	0.763	- (11.8%vs12.9%)	- (12.9%vs0%)	- (11.8%vs0%)
Effective rate of curettage	(31/31)100%	(33/34) 97.1%	(9/9) 100%	1.000	97.1%vs10%	100%vs100%	97.1%vs100%

Table 3. Pregnancy proportions among the UAE, curettage, and HIFU groups.

Variable	UAE group	Curettage group	HIFU group	p Values among the three groups
Patients with fertility requirements	25	28	06
Became pregnant	(10/25) 40.00%	(13/28) 46.42%	(2/6) 33.33%	0.804
Live birth rate	(7/10) 70.00%	(11/13) 84.61%	(2/6) 33.33%	0.092

Data availability statement

The original contributions of this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed at the corresponding authors.