Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38383385›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024

The effectiveness of hysteroscopy for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.

Xinxin You, Yan Ruan, Shouxiang Weng, Chenya Lin, Meifu Gan, Feng Qi

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinxin You *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Linhai, Zhejiang Province, China.
Yan Ruan *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Linhai, Zhejiang Province, China.
Shouxiang Weng *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Linhai, Zhejiang Province, China.
Chenya LinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Linhai, Zhejiang Province, China.
Meifu GanDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Linhai, Zhejiang Province, China. gmeifu@sohu.com.
Feng QiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Linhai, Zhejiang Province, China. wolovetheworld@163.com.
Wenzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a long-term complication of cesarean section characterized by the localization of a subsequent gestational sac within the scar area or niche developed as a result of a previous cesarean section. Its incidence has increased substantially because of the high global cesarean section rate in recent decades. Several surgical and drug treatments exist for this condition; however, there is currently no optimal treatment. This study compared the effectiveness of direct hysteroscopic removal of the gestational tissue and hysteroscopy combined with vacuum suction for the treatment of CSP.

methodsFrom 2017 to 2023, 521 patients were diagnosed with CSP at our hospital. Of these patients, 45 underwent hysteroscopy. Among them, 28 underwent direct hysteroscopic removal (hysteroscopic removal group) and 17 underwent hysteroscopy combined with vacuum suction (hysteroscopic suction group). The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the hysteroscopic removal group and hysteroscopic suction group were analyzed.

resultsAmong the 45 patients, the amount of bleeding and hospitalization cost were significantly higher in the hysteroscopic removal group than in the hysteroscopic suction group (33.8 mL vs. 9.9 mL, P < 0.001; and 8744.0 yuan vs. 5473.8 yuan, P < 0.001; respectively). The operation time and duration of hospitalization were significantly longer in the hysteroscopic removal group than in the hysteroscopic suction group (61.4 min vs. 28.2 min, P < 0.001; and 3.8 days vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.026; respectively). Three patients in the hysteroscopic removal group had uterine perforation and received laparoscopic repair during operation. No complications occurred in the hysteroscopic suction group. One patient in the hysteroscopic removal group received ultrasound-guided suction curettage due to postoperative moderate vaginal bleeding, and one patient in the hysteroscopic suction group received ultrasound-guided suction curettage due to postoperative gestational residue and elevated serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels. Reproductive function was preserved in all patients.

conclusionsHysteroscopy is an effective method for treating CSP. Compared with direct hysteroscopic removal, hysteroscopy combined with vacuum suction is more suitable for CSP. However, multicenter prospective studies with large sample sizes are required for verification of these findings.

Indexed as

HysteroscopyPregnancy, EctopicCesarean SectionCicatrixFemaleHumansPostoperative HemorrhagePregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCesarean scar pregnancyDirect gestational tissue removalHysteroscopySerum β-hCGVacuum suction

Identifiers

PMID38383385
PMCPMC10880367
OpenAlexW4391999855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.