ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Clinical study of two reversible arterial blockade methods in the treatment of scar pregnancy under combined hysterolaparoscopy.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess and compare the clinical efficacy of scar pregnancy debridement by a combination of reversible bilateral uterine and internal iliac artery blockade with hysterolaparoscopy, as a management strategy for cesarean scar pregnancy.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy who underwent combined surgical intervention involving hysteroscopy and laparoscopy between May 2020 and February 2024. The study population was divided into two groups based on the type of arterial blockade used: a uterine artery blockade group and an internal iliac artery blockade group. Data were retrospectively collected from patient medical records, including baseline characteristics, surgery-related details, and postoperative outcome.
resultThe initial data revealed no discernible differences between the two groups in terms of age, number of caesarean sections, menstrual period, menstrual flow (light/medium/heavy), presence of dysmenorrhea, days of menopause, maximum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels, gestational tissue size on ultrasound imaging, reproductive hormones levels (E2/FSH/LH/progesterone), or anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) (all P > 0.05). There were no apparent associations between the two groups in terms of the occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcome or ultrasound findings. However, the uterine artery group demonstrated shorter operative time, less bleeding, fewer postoperative hospital days, and lower overall hospital costs compared to the internal iliac artery group. Furthermore, the uterine artery group exhibited greater improvements in hCG and progesterone levels, menstrual periods, menstrual flow and dysmenorrhea than the internal iliac artery group. Additionally, the quality-of-life scores and a cumulative pregnancy rate were both significantly higher than in the control group.
conclusionThe uterine artery group exhibited superior efficacy in the removal of scar pregnancies compared to the internal iliac artery group, under reversible uterine artery blockade by uterolaparoscopy in conjunction with bilateral uterine artery ligation. This procedure should be considered the preferred surgical approach for the aforementioned indication.
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.