ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Clinical efficacy and re-pregnancy outcomes of patients with previous cesarean scar pregnancy treated with either high-intensity focused ultrasound or uterine artery embolization before ultrasound-guided dilatation and curettage: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of multimodal vaginal ultrasound in the detection and assessment of scar healing after caesarean section: a correlational meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Pregnancy rate and outcomes after uterine artery embolization for women: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- MRI-based scoring model to predict massive hemorrhage during dilatation and curettage in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Trial
- Treatment-Based Recurrence of Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of the Literature as a Tool for More Informed Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical effect of uterine artery embolization combined with curettage in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Arterial Embolization (TAE) of Uterine Artery with Gelatin Sponge for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Current State of the Art Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Reproductive Outcomes Following High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Impact of Uterine Artery Embolization on Subsequent Fertility Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of 20 Years of Clinical Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Focused Ultrasound Ablation Combined with Curettage and Transvaginal Repair in the Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Hysteroscopy improves surgical outcomes of hydatidiform moles while reducing postoperative residuals.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) treated with either high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU-a) or uterine artery embolization (UAE) combined with ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage (USg-D&C) was effective. However, there is insufficient comparative research evidence on clinical efficacy and subsequent pregnancy outcomes after previous CSP treatment. This study aims to investigate the efficacy, safety, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes of HIFU-a compared to UAE before USg-D&C for the treatment of CSP.
methodsBetween January 2016 and July 2020, a total of 272 patients received the pretreatment with HIFU-a or UAE(HIFU-a group: n = 118; UAE group: n = 154). The clinical characteristics, treatment success rate, postoperative pregnancy rate and outcome of the two groups were compared and analyzed.
resultsThe demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. After pretreatment, the adverse events rate of HIFU-a group was lower than that of UAE group (10.40% (16/154) vs. 40.70% (48/118), P = 0.00). All patients received the USg-D&C. The HIFU-a group was of less intraoperative blood loss (10.00 (5.00-20.00) vs. 12.50 (5.00-30.00) ml, P = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in success rates. However, the HIFU-a group was of a shorter duration of postoperative vaginal bleeding (12.00 (9.00-13.00) vs. 14.00 (12.00-15.00) days, P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of subsequent pregnancy rates (P = 0.317). However, the recurrent CSP (rCSP) rate in the HIFU-a group was lower than that in the UAE group (7.70% (6/78) vs. 19.70%(13/66), P = 0.03).
conclusionsCSP treated with either HIFU-a or UAE combined with USg-D&C was safe and effective. Although no significant difference was found in the subsequent pregnancy outcomes of the two groups, the rCSP was more common in the UAE group. So, we recommend HIFU-a combined with USg-D&C treatment modality.
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.