The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2026
Lauromacrogol pericystic injection combined with curettage vs. uterine artery embolization with curettage for cesarean scar pregnancy.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sun Yaqing, Liu Ling, Sun Guoquan, Ying Lijie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: With the policy of allowing all couples to have three children unveiled in China, the cesarean section rate has increased, leading to a corresponding rise in the number of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) cases. Therefore, improving the treatment quality is very important. This article is to compare the efficacy of two different methods treating CSP: Lauromacrogol pericystic injection combined with curettage and uterine artery embolization with curettage.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study at Zhejiang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine (Hangzhou, China) of 55 patients diagnosed with CSP between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were consecutively assigned to treatment groups: the lauromacrogol treatment group (n = 23) and the uterine artery embolization treatment group (n = 22). The amount of bleeding during and after uterine curettage, the recovery time of human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG), hospitalization time, hospitalization expenses, menstrual recovery time, ovulation recovery time, postoperative ovarian function, postoperative pain scores, and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated without major intraoperative complications. The amount of bleeding during and after uterine curettage, the recovery time of β-HCG, and menstrual recovery time showed no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the lauromacrogol group demonstrated significantly shorter ovulation recovery time (96.45 ± 11.64 days vs. 113.76 ± 14.33 days, p < 0.001) and better postoperative ovarian function profiles with lower FSH and LH levels and higher E2 and AMH levels (all p < 0.05). The hospitalization cost in the lauromacrogol group was significantly lower than that in the uterine artery embolization group (¥6863.27 ± 908.22 vs. ¥20747.02 ± 4963.43, p < 0.001), and the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly less than that in the uterine artery embolization group (17.39% vs. 45.45%, p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores at 2 and 4 weeks were also significantly lower in the lauromacrogol group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Lauromacrogol injection around the pregnancy sac combined with curettage and uterine artery embolization combined with curettage demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of bleeding control, β-HCG recovery, and menstrual resumption for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. However, the lauromacrogol approach offered significant advantages including lower cost, better preservation of ovarian function, faster ovulation recovery, reduced postoperative pain, and fewer adverse reactions, making it suitable for broader adoption in hospitals, particularly those without interventional radiology facilities.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study at Zhejiang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine (Hangzhou, China) of 55 patients diagnosed with CSP between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were consecutively assigned to treatment groups: the lauromacrogol treatment group (n = 23) and the uterine artery embolization treatment group (n = 22). The amount of bleeding during and after uterine curettage, the recovery time of human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG), hospitalization time, hospitalization expenses, menstrual recovery time, ovulation recovery time, postoperative ovarian function, postoperative pain scores, and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated without major intraoperative complications. The amount of bleeding during and after uterine curettage, the recovery time of β-HCG, and menstrual recovery time showed no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the lauromacrogol group demonstrated significantly shorter ovulation recovery time (96.45 ± 11.64 days vs. 113.76 ± 14.33 days, p < 0.001) and better postoperative ovarian function profiles with lower FSH and LH levels and higher E2 and AMH levels (all p < 0.05). The hospitalization cost in the lauromacrogol group was significantly lower than that in the uterine artery embolization group (¥6863.27 ± 908.22 vs. ¥20747.02 ± 4963.43, p < 0.001), and the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly less than that in the uterine artery embolization group (17.39% vs. 45.45%, p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores at 2 and 4 weeks were also significantly lower in the lauromacrogol group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Lauromacrogol injection around the pregnancy sac combined with curettage and uterine artery embolization combined with curettage demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of bleeding control, β-HCG recovery, and menstrual resumption for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. However, the lauromacrogol approach offered significant advantages including lower cost, better preservation of ovarian function, faster ovulation recovery, reduced postoperative pain, and fewer adverse reactions, making it suitable for broader adoption in hospitals, particularly those without interventional radiology facilities.