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 · 2018
Outcomes in subsequent pregnancies after wedge resection for interstitial ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Hoyos Luis R, Vilchez Gustavo, Allsworth Jenifer E, Malik Mokerrum, Rodriguez-Kovacs Javier, Adekola Henry, Awonuga Awoniyi O
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate pregnancy outcomes in patients with a history of wedge resection for interstitial ectopic pregnancy (WRIEP).
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of pregnancies with a history of WRIEP from 2000 to 2013 at two inner city hospitals in Detroit, MI. Pregnant-matched controls (1:3) were selected and included patients with history of surgically treated tubal ectopic pregnancy and delivered patients without history of ectopic pregnancy. Pregnancy outcomes, including a composite, were compared among the groups.
RESULTS: Eighty-three cases of interstitial pregnancy were identified. Sixty-three (75.9%) underwent WRIEP from which 19 (30.2%) had a subsequent pregnancy and 11 (57.9%) carried it ≥20 weeks. No difference in subsequent pregnancy outcomes including the composite was found among patients with prior WRIEP and patients with history of surgically treated tubal ectopic pregnancy except for a longer interpregnancy interval. Compared with delivered patients without a history of ectopic pregnancy, no difference in late obstetric outcomes was found including the composite, gestational age at delivery in weeks (38.2 versus 38.1, p = .955), preterm delivery rate (30% versus 21%, p = .674), and proportion of term vaginal (40% versus 52%, p = .721) or cesarean deliveries (60% versus 30%, p = .137). The most common indication for cesarean among patients with a history of WRIEP was a history of such (5/6, 83.3%) and there were no cases of abnormal placentation.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that a history of WRIEP is not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of pregnancies with a history of WRIEP from 2000 to 2013 at two inner city hospitals in Detroit, MI. Pregnant-matched controls (1:3) were selected and included patients with history of surgically treated tubal ectopic pregnancy and delivered patients without history of ectopic pregnancy. Pregnancy outcomes, including a composite, were compared among the groups.
RESULTS: Eighty-three cases of interstitial pregnancy were identified. Sixty-three (75.9%) underwent WRIEP from which 19 (30.2%) had a subsequent pregnancy and 11 (57.9%) carried it ≥20 weeks. No difference in subsequent pregnancy outcomes including the composite was found among patients with prior WRIEP and patients with history of surgically treated tubal ectopic pregnancy except for a longer interpregnancy interval. Compared with delivered patients without a history of ectopic pregnancy, no difference in late obstetric outcomes was found including the composite, gestational age at delivery in weeks (38.2 versus 38.1, p = .955), preterm delivery rate (30% versus 21%, p = .674), and proportion of term vaginal (40% versus 52%, p = .721) or cesarean deliveries (60% versus 30%, p = .137). The most common indication for cesarean among patients with a history of WRIEP was a history of such (5/6, 83.3%) and there were no cases of abnormal placentation.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that a history of WRIEP is not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.