ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023
Complex Blood Supply Patterns in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Insights from Digital Subtraction Angiography Imaging.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Clinical investigation of fertility after uterine artery embolization combined with dilation and curettage(D&C) or D&C alone for cesarean scar pregnancies.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025Article
- A comprehensive model combining radiomics and risk factors for predicting massive hemorrhage in cesarean scar pregnancy during dilatation and curettage.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
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
BACKGROUND Understanding the blood supply pattern of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) can effectively help to determine the best choice of treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the blood supply pattern and outcomes of patients with CSP through digital subtraction angiography (DSA) imaging. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of CSP. The DSA images of these patients were reviewed, including the type of blood supply, dominant vessel, and collateral blood supply to the gestational sac. The clinical outcomes were analyzed between the 2 groups. RESULTS Thirty-seven patients with type I and 29 patients with type II CSP were enrolled in this study. Type II CSP showed a higher proportion of rich blood supply than type I (44.83% vs 29.72%, P>0.05). Compared with type II CSP, type I CSP tended to have bilateral dominant blood supply predominance (67.57% vs 41.38%, P<0.05). The incidence of collateral blood supply was 5.41% in the type I CSP group and 31.03% in the type II CSP group (P<0.05). In the type II CSP group, multiple collateral blood vessels were found in 4 patients. The superior vesicle artery was the most common source of collateral blood supply in both groups. Two patients with type II CSP suffered massive bleeding during surgery after uterine artery embolization (UAE). None of the patients received a hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS UAE is safe and effective for both types of CSP. The blood supply pattern is more complex and abnormal in type II CSP. More attention should be paid to the collateral blood supply to achieve complete embolization during the UAE procedure in the case of type II 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.