ObjectiveTo compare the curative effect of three therapeutic strategies for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). MethodsBetween January 2009 and December 2013, 208 patients with CSP underwent intramuscular methotrexate alone (group A, n=72), transvaginal ultrasound monitoring after embryo sac strangulation after injection of methotrexate (group B, n=70) and uterine arterial chemoembolization therapy monitoring after hysteroscopy surgery (group C, n=66). We studied their clinical data retrospectively. The preoperative treatment interval, the hospitalization days, intraoperative bleeding, time of blood β-HCG to normal level and hospitalization costs were compared between the groups. ResultsThe preoperative treatment interval, hospitalization days, intraoperative bleeding, and time of blood β-HCG to normal level of group C were significantly better than those of group A and B (P<0.05), while the hospitalization cost of the three groups were not statistically signficant (P>0.05). ConclusionAs a treatment for CSP, uterine artery chemoembolization is a safe and effective method, and it has the advantages of short hospitalization time, less intraoperative bleeding and high fertility preservation. It is worth application in clinical medicine.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of methotrexate perfusion combined with interventional treatment and the traditional treatment with methotrexate and mifepristone for cesarean scar pregnancy. MethodA total of 589 patients diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy after surgery between January 2012 and March 2015 in our hospital were selected to be our study subjects. The patients were informed of the two kinds of treatment, and based on their own will, they were arranged into corresponding groups. Group A had 234 patients who were willing to undergo the conventional therapy:intramuscular injection of methotrexate (20 mg, once per day for 5 days); oral mifepristone (50 mg once per day for 3 to 5 days); and the continuation of drugs was determined by local pregnancy tissue blood flow on B ultrasound and liver function of the patients. Group B had 255 patients who selected uterine artery perfusion and arterial embolism. There was no significant difference in terms of age, serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) and uterine incision gestation sac size between the two groups of patients (P>0.05). Then we compared the treatment effect between the two groups. ResultsThe differences in the amount of bleeding, the time of blood HCG dropped to normal, and hospitalization duration between the two groups were significant (P<0.05), while in the rate of hysterectomy, drug-induced liver injury were not (P<0.05). ConclusionsMethotrexate perfusion combined with interventional treatment is better than the traditional treatment with methotrexate and mifepristone for cesarean scar pregnancy in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.
ObjectiveTo investigate the value of uterine compression suture through laparoscopy in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). MethodsA random controlled study was conducted on 85 CSP patients diagnosed between September 2013 and December 2014. The patients were randomly divided into control group (n=43) and study group (n=42). The control group received routine evacuation under laparoscopy, while the study group received routine evaluation under laparoscopy combined with uterine compression suture. The efficacy of the two treatments were compared and analyzed. ResultsThe operation time of the control group and the study group was (36.6±17.7) and (45.6±14.8) minutes, respectively. Total amount of bleeding during and after the operation was (207.9±165.8) and (96.1±29.0) mL for the two groups of patients, and the above differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05). There was no significant difference in the indicators of anal exhaust time, hospitalization stay, blood β-human chorionic gonadotrophin clearance time, and menstruation recovery time between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionUterine compression suture through laparoscopy is a safe and reliable method to reduce the bleeding of CSP, which is easy to perform and worthy of promotion.
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and uterine artery embolization (UAE) in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods A total of 152 patients with CSP diagnosed by B-type ultrasonography were enrolled prospectively in this study from June 2014 to May 2016 in Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital and Suining Central Hospital. Six patients from Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital and 84 from Suining Central Hospital for Volunteered HIFU treatment were regarded as observation group. The other 62 patients from Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital were selected to accept UAE treatment voluntarily were designated as control group. The clinical efficacy and therapeutic safety of the two groups were compared after the treatment. Results Eighty-two patients (91.1%) in the observation group and 32 (51.6%) in the control group had a bleeding volume equal to 100 mL or lower during complete curettage of uterine cavity (P<0.05). The hospitalization expenses of the above two groups were respectively (25 126.51±1 473.49) and (32 928.42 ±1 579.35) yuan (P<0.05). The hospitalization time was (11.03±1.52) and (10.65±1.87) days respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the normal rate of human chorionic gonadotropin recovery between the observation group and the control group at 14 days after treatment (P>0.05). Eighty-seven patients (96.7%) in the observation group and 51 (82.3%) in the control group had their menstrual recovery to normal level at 2 months after treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications was 1.1% and 6.4% in the observation group and the control group, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusions HIFU in the treatment of CSP is safe and effective. Compared with UAE, HIFU requires less cost with fewer complications, which is worth promoting.
Objective To explore the clinical effect of intramuscular injection of methotrexate on hysteroscopic treatment of endogenous cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods A prospective analysis was conducted on 94 patients diagnosed with endogenous CSP who visited the Department of Gynecology in Liuzhou Workers’ Hospital between January 2013 and January 2018, and they were randomly divided into two groups, the intramuscular injection of methotrexate followed by hysteroscopic surgery group (the methotrexate group, n=39) and the direct hysteroscopic surgery group (the non-methotrexate group, n=55). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical complications, length of hospital stay, hospitalization expenses, the recovery time of blood human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and treatment outcomes of the two groups were compared. The normally distributed data were expressed as mean±standard deviation, and the non-normally distributed data were expressed as median (lower quartile, upper quartile). Results There was no statistically significant difference in age, gestational sac diameter, uterine scar thickness, number of cesarean sections, time from cesarean section to present, time of menopause, or preoperative blood HCG value between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative blood loss [75 (35, 120) vs. 65 (35, 130) mL, P=0.821], incidence of complications (5.1% vs. 5.5%, P=1.000), postoperative blood HCG recovery time [(5.22±2.17) vs. (4.96±1.81) weeks, P=0.559] or the effective rate of treatment (94.9% vs. 90.9%, P=0.747) between the two groups. The methotrexate group had longer operation time [43 (34, 55) vs. 32 (28, 35) min, P=0.001], longer length of hospital stay [(10.89±1.42) vs. (5.82±1.47) d, P<0.001], and higher hospitalization cost [(8596.46±3336.59) vs. (7058.84±2638.49) yuan, P=0.014]. Conclusion For patients with endogenous CSP, intramuscular injection of methotrexate before hysteroscopic surgery is not necessary, for it has no significant impact on the treatment effect, instead, it may prolong the operation time and length of hospital stay, and increase the hospitalization cost.