Observational studyMedicine2020
A comparison between laparoscopy and hysteroscopy approach in treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exclusive hysteroscopic approach for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: Systematic review of the literature.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Case Report in a Grade 2 Maternity and Review of the Literature.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic Approach to Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP).Advanced biomedical research · 2024Article
- Efficacy, Safety and Outcomes of the Laparoscopic Management of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy as a Single Therapeutic Approach: A Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparing the clinical efficacy of three surgical methods for cesarean scar pregnancy.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- "In Situ" Methotrexate Injection Followed by Hysteroscopic Resection for Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and a Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy among Transvaginal Sonography, Transabdominal Sonography, and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Conservative Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Approaches in the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Risk Factors for Intraoperative Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Overview of ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, management, and innovation.Women's health (London, England)Review
- Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of scar pregnancy.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of laparoscopy and hysteroscopy for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and analyze the clinical factors associated with successful selection for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic treatment of CSP.We retrospectively studied 112 cases of CSP that were treated by laparoscopy and/or hysteroscopy in our hospital from December 2014 to December 2017. In total, 72 of these patients underwent ultrasound-guided curettage and hysteroscopic resection without uterine scar defect repair. Fourty of these patients underwent laparoscopic resection and repair of the uterine scar defect. We analyzed the different clinical variables between the 2 groups and identified the clinical factors which could predict the need for the laparoscopic repair of uterine scar defect. Results showed that laparoscopy and hysteroscopy were safe ways to treat CSP, and no patient underwent hysterectomy. The β-hCG level in both of the 2 groups decreased to normal 4 to 8 weeks after surgery. There were significant differences between the hysteroscopy group and laparoscopy uterine scar repair group in terms of days of amenorrhea, gestational sac diameter, myometrial thickness, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization duration (P < .05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the days of amenorrhea, gestational sac diameter and myometrial thickness were independent risk factors for CSP treated by minimally invasive surgery, which were also shown by ROC curve analysis to be predictors of the need for the repair of the uterine scar defect, with optimal cutoffs of 52.50 days, 3.25 cm, and 2.05 mm, respectively; and the areas under their corresponding ROC were 0.721, 0.851, and 0.927, respectively.We conclude that laparoscopy and hysteroscopy are safe and efficient minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of CSP. The days of amenorrhea, gestational sac diameter and myometrial thickness may be key factors associated with successful selection for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic treatment 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.