Efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

References

• Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG. 2007;114(3):253–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01237.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller R, Timor-Tritsch IE, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Society for maternal-Fetal medicine (SMFM) consult series #49: cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(5):B2–B14. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang P, Li X, Li W, et al. The trend of the distribution of ectopic pregnancy sites and the clinical characteristics of caesarean scar pregnancy. Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01472-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noël L, Thilaganathan B. Caesarean scar pregnancy: diagnosis, natural history and treatment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2022;34(5):279–286. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grechukhina O, Deshmukh U, Fan L, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy, incidence, and recurrence. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(5):1285–1295. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng S, Wang Y, Ye P, et al. Comparing the clinical efficacy of three surgical methods for cesarean scar pregnancy. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02415-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):731–738. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Bujold E, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(6):915–925. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.05.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Yin Q, Xu F, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation in treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) I and II. Bmc Pregnancy Childb. 2022;22:607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ban Y, Shen J, Wang X, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy clinical classification system with recommended surgical strategy. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(5):927–936. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang H, Li S, Ma Z, et al. Therapeutic effects of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) and methotrexate (MTX) conservative therapy used in treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(4):819–823. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3881-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timor-Tritsch IEM, Monteagudo AM. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiao B, Zhang Z, Li Y. Uterine artery embolization versus methotrexate for cesarean scar pregnancy in a Chinese population: a meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(7):1040–1048. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao J, Zhang S, Wang F, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: noninvasive and effective treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(4):356.e1–356.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Yang B, Chen W, et al. Clinical efficacy and re-pregnancy outcomes of patients with previous cesarean scar pregnancy treated with either high-intensity focused ultrasound or uterine artery embolization before ultrasound-guided dilatation and curettage: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05376-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krissi H, Hiersch L, Stolovitch N, et al. Outcome, complications and future fertility in women treated with uterine artery embolization and methotrexate for non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;182:172–176. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakaria MA, Abdallah ME, Shavell VI, et al. Conservative management of cervical ectopic pregnancy: utility of uterine artery embolization. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):872–876. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Zhang W, Orsi F, et al. Ultrasound-guided high intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of gynaecological diseases: a review of safety and efficacy. Int J Hyperthermia. 2015;31(3):280–284. doi: 10.3109/02656736.2014.996790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Wang L, Zhu X. Efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound compared with uterine artery embolization in cesarean section pregnancy: a meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2023;30(6):446–454. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2023.02.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Zhang Y, He J, et al. Outcomes of subsequent pregnancies in patients following treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy with high intensity focused ultrasound followed by ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage. Int J Hyperther. 2019;36(1):925–930. doi: 10.1080/02656736.2019.1654619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin Y, Pan F, He M, et al. High intensity focused ultrasound combined with ultrasound-guided suction curettage treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy: a comparison of different HIFU sonication strategies. Int J Hyperthermia. 2022;39(1):390–396. doi: 10.1080/02656736.2022.2044078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zhang C, He J, et al. The impact of gestational sac size on the effectiveness and safety of high intensity focused ultrasound combined with ultrasound-guided suction curettage treatment for caesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018;35(1):291–297. doi: 10.1080/02656736.2018.1496485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350(jan02 1):g7647–g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fang S, Zhang P, Zhu Y, et al. A retrospective analysis of the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy by high-intensity focused ultrasound, uterine artery embolization and surgery. Front Surg. 2020;7:23. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.00023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong Y, Guo Q, Pu Y, et al. Outcome of high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization in the treatment and management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(30):e7687. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang L, Du Y, Zhao C. High-intensity focused ultrasound combined with dilatation and curettage for cesarean scar pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(1):98–101. doi: 10.1002/uog.12557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huo X, Xie Y, Yang L, et al. Doppler ultrasound evaluation of the efficacy of high intensity focused ultrasound in treatment of cesarean section scar pregnancy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2020;30(3):240–244. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2020.03.240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, Tang L, Sun Y, et al. Clinical outcome of high-intensity focused ultrasound as the preoperative management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(3):387–391. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mu L, Weng H, Wang X. Evaluation of the treatment of high intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for exogenous cesarean scar pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;306(3):769–777. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06487-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng Y, Dai Y, Yu G, et al. Analysis of the type of cesarean scar pregnancy impacted on the effectiveness and safety of high intensity focused ultrasound combined with ultrasound-guided suction curettage treatment. Int J Hyperthermia. 2022;39(1):1449–1457. doi: 10.1080/02656736.2022.2107715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W, Chen Y, Yang Y, et al. High‐intensity focused ultrasound compared with uterine artery chemoembolization with methotrexate for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022;158(3):572–578. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao J, Shi Z, Zhou J, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: comparing the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017;43(3):640–647. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.11.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan Y, Pu D, Zhan P, et al. Focused ultrasound ablation surgery combined with ultrasound-guided suction curettage in the treatment and management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;258:168–173. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.12.031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Liu Y, Jiang Y, et al. Efficacy of different treatment of 134 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy. Minerva Surg. 2021;76(6):580–585. doi: 10.23736/S2724-5691.20.08412-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhu X, Deng X, Wan Y, et al. High-Intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(18):e854. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Deng X, Xiao S, et al. A comparison of high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolisationon for the management of caesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Hyperthermia. 2016;32(2):144–150. doi: 10.3109/02656736.2015.1104733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu F, Wang Z, Zhu H, et al. Feasibility of US-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: initial experience. RADIOLOGY. 2005;236(3):1034–1040. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2362041105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu F, Chen W, Bai J, et al. Tumor vessel destruction resulting from high-intensity focused ultrasound in patients with solid malignancies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28(4):535–542. doi: 10.1016/s0301-5629(01)00515-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du YJ, Zhang XH, Wang LQ. Risk factors for haemorrhage during suction curettage after uterine artery embolization for treating caesarean scar pregnancy: a case-control study. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015;80(4):259–264. doi: 10.1159/000381263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang T, Liu G, Huang L, et al. Methotrexate therapy followed by suction curettage followed by foley tamponade for caesarean scar pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(2):209–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.01.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li W, Gan X, Kashyap N, et al. Comparison of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation and uterine artery embolization in the management of cervical pregnancy. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:990066. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.990066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen L, Xiao S, Zhu X, et al. Analysis of the reproductive outcome of patients with cesarean scar pregnancy treated by high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization: a retrospective cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(5):883–890. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.09.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao X, Feng Z, Li T, et al. Comparing the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization in caesarean scar pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2019;36(6):1314–1325. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00959-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mi W, Pei P, Zheng Y. Clinical efficacy and safety between high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization for cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(6):6379–6387. doi: 10.21037/apm-21-839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar