International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
Clinical efficacy and risk factors for suction curettage and hysteroscopy in patients with type I and II cesarean scar pregnancy.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Wu Tong, Wang Qingxuan, Liu Wei, Zhang Jing, Wang Wenhui, Wang Jun, Ji Cuihong, Liu Honghui, Tang Chunyan, Mi Xin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy and evaluate risk factors for suction curettage (SC) and hysteroscopy in the treatment of type I and II cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 100 women diagnosed with type I/II CSP. Patients were treated with either ultrasound-guided SC (SC group) or hysteroscopy resection (surgery group). The success rates, mean operation time, hospitalization duration, hospitalization cost, risk factors, adverse events, and complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: The success rate of the SC and surgery groups were 85% and 100%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.032). There was one case of type I CSP and eight cases of type II CSP that failed SC treatment. No failed cases were found in the surgery group. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure revealed that diameter of the gestational sac was a risk factor for SC failure (odds ratio, 19.66 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.70-227.72], P = 0.017). Comparing the clinical outcomes between the SC and surgery groups, although the mean operation time of the SC group was significantly shorter than the surgery group (15 [CI, 15-20] vs. 30 [CI, 27-40], P = 0.001), the cost and duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the surgery group than that in the SC group. No significant differences were observed for adverse events and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy is an effective and economical method for treating type I/II CSP. Moreover, SC is not recommended for patients with type I/II CSP with a gestation age ≥8 weeks.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 100 women diagnosed with type I/II CSP. Patients were treated with either ultrasound-guided SC (SC group) or hysteroscopy resection (surgery group). The success rates, mean operation time, hospitalization duration, hospitalization cost, risk factors, adverse events, and complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: The success rate of the SC and surgery groups were 85% and 100%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.032). There was one case of type I CSP and eight cases of type II CSP that failed SC treatment. No failed cases were found in the surgery group. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure revealed that diameter of the gestational sac was a risk factor for SC failure (odds ratio, 19.66 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.70-227.72], P = 0.017). Comparing the clinical outcomes between the SC and surgery groups, although the mean operation time of the SC group was significantly shorter than the surgery group (15 [CI, 15-20] vs. 30 [CI, 27-40], P = 0.001), the cost and duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the surgery group than that in the SC group. No significant differences were observed for adverse events and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy is an effective and economical method for treating type I/II CSP. Moreover, SC is not recommended for patients with type I/II CSP with a gestation age ≥8 weeks.