ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Comparison of two different suction curettage methods in cesarean scar pregnancy treatment.
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 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.
- 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
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound enhancement-pattern classification for procedure selection and perioperative outcomes in cesarean scar pregnancy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), the incidence of which is increasing, can lead to life-threatening consequences. In this study, it was aimed to compare the results of two different ultrasound-assisted suction curettage (SC) approaches that we applied to endogenous type CSPs in different time periods.
methodsPatients who were diagnosed with CSP and treated with SC in the early pregnancy service between January 2012 and March 2019 were included in the study. While classical SC was applied until December 2016, patients were treated with SC modified by us after this date. Demographic characteristics, preoperative clinical findings, intraoperative characteristics and postoperative short-term follow-up of these two groups of patients belonging to different time periods were compared.
results34 patients were treated with classic SC (Group 1) and 32 patients with modified SC (Group 2). The amount of decrease in Hemoglobin values measured at the sixth hour postoperatively compared to the preoperative period was found to be less in group 2 (1.01 ± 0.67 g/dl) than in group 1 (1.39 ± 0.85 g/dl) (p = 0.042). The treatment failure rate was found to be lower in group 2 (p = 0.028). According to the results of multiple logistic regression analysis of significant factors associated with treatment outcome, myometrial thickness measurement and the largest gestational diameter measurement were found to be significant independent factors.
conclusionIn CSP cases, SC procedure with abdominal ultrasonography is an effective and reliable approach. At the beginning of this surgical procedure, if the gestational sac is removed from the uterine wall with the curettage cannula before suction, the success of the procedure will increase even more.
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.