ArticleBMC women's health2014
Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review of clinical evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Misdiagnosis analysis of uterine scar pregnancy after cesarean section.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Effect of Decision-to-Delivery Time of Emergency Cesarean Section on Adverse Newborn Outcomes at East Gojjam Zone Public Hospital, Ethiopia, March 2023: Multicenter Prospective Observational Study Design.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Treatment of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in China with Uterine Artery Embolization-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- A Scary Complication: Single-center Study on Management and Outcome of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021Article
- Clinical Efficacy of Combined Hysteroscopic and Laparoscopic Surgery and Reversible Ligation of the Uterine Artery for Excision and Repair of Uterine Scar in Patients with Type II and III Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy by High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound, Uterine Artery Embolization and Surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2020Article
- Risk Factor for Residue After Uterine Artery Chemotherapy and Embolization in Combination with Dilatation and Curettage for Treating Caesarean Scar Pregnancy.Current molecular medicine · 2019Article
- Analysis on clinical effects of dilation and curettage guided by ultrasonography versus hysteroscopy after uterine artery embolization in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Article
- Ectopic Pregnancy in a Cesarean Section Scar: Successful Management Using Vacuum Aspiration under Laparoscopic Supervision-Mini Review of Current Literature.Case reports in surgery · 2016Article
- Transvaginal Surgical Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy II (CSP-II): An Analysis of 25 Cases.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) has significantly increased in the recent decade. Although uterine artery embolization (UAE) has been adopted to minimize the blood loss during uterine curettage removing of CSP, massive bleeding and uterine rupture can still be frequently encountered. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a novel combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy technique with the traditional curettage in removing the conceptus and repairing the incision defect following the UAE management of CSP.
methodsThe CSP patients (n = 58) diagnosed between March 1, 2005 and March 1, 2010 were enrolled in three medical centers in Shanghai, China. All of these patients have undergone intra-arterial methotrexate, UAE and one of the following treatments: combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy (study group, n = 25) and uterine curettage (control group, n = 33). Their medical records and 2-year outcomes were reviewed. The CSP removal rate, amount of blood loss during the treatment, incision repair rate (note: the post-curettage healing process of the incision defect was seen as a form of natural incision repairing, i.e., the self-repair mode), hospital stay, β-hCG regression time and postoperative sequelae were compared between two groups.
resultsThe CSP removal rate in the study group (100%) was significantly higher than that (79%) in the control group (p = 0.024). The average blood loss was 78.0 mL in the study group, which was much less than the 258.5 mL (p = 0.004) in the control group. A satisfactory incision repair rate (96%) was achieved in the study group, while it was 25% (p < 0.001) in the control group. Moreover, the study group had significantly shorter hospital stays (p = 0.043) and β-hCG regression times (p = 0.033), lower rates of postoperative abdominal pain (p = 0.035) and menstruation abnormalities (p = 0.043).
conclusionsCombined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy is much safer and more effective than uterine curettage as a supplementary measure to remove the conceptus and repair the cesarean incision following the UAE management of CSP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.