ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Clinical efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation in treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) I and II.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Treating Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Fertility Preservation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- Short- and long-term efficacy evaluation of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation and uterine artery embolization in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) I and II: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of the perioperative complications of high intensity focused ultrasound vs. laparoscopic surgery for uterine fibroids: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- How safe is high-intensity focused ultrasound? An intriguing solution for obstetric and gynecological diseases: A systematic review.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
- Healing Process after High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment of Benign Skin Lesions: Dermoscopic Analysis and Treatment Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of a New Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Classification and Evaluation System and a Risk Scoring System.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- "In Situ" Methotrexate Injection Followed by Hysteroscopic Resection for Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Current Understanding and Treatment Including Role of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the safety and feasibility of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation followed by ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage (USg-D&C) for two types patients with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP-I and CSP-II). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of 101 CSP-I patients and 52 CSP-II patients who received HIFU ablation followed by USg-D&C from Jun 2014 to Oct 2020. The diameter of gestational sac/mass, thickness of the intervening myometrium, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stays, adverse effects and β-HCG level in the two groups were compared.
resultsAll patients successfully received HIFU ablation under conscious sedation. The median total treatment time of HIFU ablation and median USg-D&C time in the CSP-I group were statistically longer than those in the CSP-II group (P < 0.05). The average intraoperative median blood loss was 39 ml in the CSP-I group and 65 ml in the CSP-II group (P < 0.05). The duration of hospitalization was 7.07 ± 1.83 days in the CSP-I group and 7.18 ± 1.72 days in the CSP-II group (P > 0.05). The average time needed for β-HCG return to normal levels was 26.08 ± 5.02. and 28.15 ± 4.99 days for CSP-I and CSP-II, respectively (P > 0.05). The percentage of adverse effects and complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionsHIFU ablation followed by USg-D&C was safe and effective in treating the CSP-I patients and CSP-II patients, which may be a potential noninvasive therapeutic option for patients with 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.