ArticleMedicine2020
Type II caesarean scar pregnancy management by ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection in combination with suction curettage: A case report.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of prophylactic lauromacrogol injection versus non-injection in patients with endogenous cesarean scar pregnancy treated by hysteroscopic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Effects of lauromacrogol injection under contrast-enhanced ultrasound guidance on cesarean scar pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided intramuscular lauromacrogol injection combined with hysteroscopy in cervical pregnancy treatment: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Evaluation of diagnosis and prognosis with anti-mullerian hormone level in early missed abortion.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe implantation of a gestational sac within the scar of a previous caesarean delivery is defined as caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), which is classified into two types: CSP I and CSP II. CSP II is life threatening, and no clear consensus for CSP II management exists. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 31-year-old woman, gravida 1, para 1, with a previous caesarean delivery due to macrosomia, presented with an estimated 45 days of amenorrhea. The patient presented to the emergency department with vaginal bleeding for 1 day and no abdominal pain. DIAGNOSES: An ultrasound examination was performed demonstrating a viable fetus that was embedded in the caesarean scar area and was bulging through the wall of the uterus into the bladder without contact with the uterine cavity or cervical canal. A diagnosis of type II caesarean scar pregnancy was made.
interventionsLocal lauromacrogol was used to reduce the gestational sac blood supply. Suction curettage was performed under the guidance of abdominal ultrasound 24 h later, and the amount of bleeding was 20 mL. The response to the treatment was monitored by serial beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG). OUTCOMES: Patient was followed up with β-hCG weekly levels which became <10 mIU/mL after 4 weeks of treatment.
conclusionUltrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection combined with suction curettage may be a safer and novel therapeutic method.
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.