ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of Four Different Surgical Modalities in the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. 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.
- Laparoscopic Management of Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Series.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Article
- Uterine arteries embolization for cesarean scar pregnancy with uterine arteriovenous fistula.SAGE open medical case reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study explored the effects of four different surgical methods in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
methodsIn this multicenter retrospective analysis of 359 patients, the surgical indices, the time taken for the serum human chorionic gonadotropin level to return to normal, the recovery time of menstruation, and the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions were comparatively analyzed. The clinical efficacies of various preoperative treatment methods to block the blood supply to CSP tissues and those of four different surgical methods to treat CSP, namely, curettage, hysteroscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and vaginal surgery, were evaluated in this study.
resultsHysteroscopic pregnancy tissue removal in patients with type I CSP was found to be associated with low cost, rapid postoperative recovery, and a low incidence of postsurgical complications. Among patients with type II-III CSP, the operation success rate (96.97% for type II and 88.46% for type III) in those who underwent uterine artery embolization + curettage was lower than that in patients from the other groups (all 100%). Among patients with type III CSP who underwent transvaginal ligation of the descending uterine artery + hysteroscopic removal of the pregnancy tissues, three patients (12.5%) underwent hysteroscopic surgery under transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surveillance so as to avoid uterine perforation considering that the pregnancy tissue was only 1 mm away from the uterine plasma membrane layer.
conclusionHysteroscopic surgery without pretreatment can be adopted for patients with type I CSP. In contrast, patients with type II and III CSP should be initially pretreated with vascular ligation to prevent intraoperative bleeding, followed by laparoscopic or vaginal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical Trial Registry Number ChiCTR2000040357.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39853658What 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.