ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Effectiveness and safety of prophylactic abdominal aortic balloon occlusion for patients with type III caesarean scar pregnancy: a prospective 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the factors associated with initial treatment failure in cesarean scar pregnancy: A retrospective case-control study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy of King's Combined Uterine Suture in Managing Placenta Accreta: A Retrospective Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a special type of ectopic pregnancy with a high risk of massive haemorrhage. Few studies have focused on the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal aortic balloon occlusion as a minimally invasive method in caesarean section. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic abdominal aortic balloon occlusion for patients with type III CSP.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study. Patients with type III CSP in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2020 to June 2022 were enrolled. Eligible patients received prophylactic abdominal aortic balloon occlusion (defined as the AABO group) or uterine artery embolization (defined as the UAE group) before laparoscopic surgery. Clinical outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, body surface radiation dose, hospitalization expenses, and time to serum β-hCG normalization, and safety were also assessed.
resultsA total of 68 patients met the criteria for the study, of whom 34 patients were in the AABO group and 34 patients were in the UAE group. The median intraoperative blood loss in the AABO and UAE groups was 17.5 (interquartile ranges [IQR]: 10, 45) and 10 (IQR: 6.25, 20) mL, respectively (P = 0.264). The body surface radiation dose of the AABO group was much lower than that of the UAE group (5.22 ± 0.44 vs. 1441.85 ± 11.59 mGy, P < 0.001). The AABO group also had lower hospitalization expenses than the UAE group (2.42 ± 0.51 vs. 3.42 ± 0.85 *10^5 yuan, P < 0.001). The average time to serum β-hCG normalization in the AABO group was 28.9 ± 3.21 d, which was similar to that in the UAE group (30.3 ± 3.72 d, P = 0.099). In addition, the incidence of adverse events in the AABO group was lower than that in the UAE group (5.9% vs. 58.8%, P < 0.001).
conclusionProphylactic AABO was equally as effective as UAE in patients with type III CSP but was safer than UAE during and after the operation.
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.