ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2024
Temporary uterine artery blocking and uterine artery embolization in treating cesarean scar pregnancy.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy. Lack of timely CSP treatment can lead to severe postpartum bleeding, affect fertility, and threaten patients' life and health.
aimThis work explored the use of laparoscopic temporary uterine artery blocking (TUAB) and uterine artery embolization (UAE) in treating CSP. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor the purpose of the study, 60 patients with CSP were selected and equally divided into the UAE group and the TUAB group. Both groups underwent cesarean scar lesion repair (CSLR) after the procedure. The differences in surgical outcomes, β‑human chorionic gonadotropin (β‑HCG) levels, ovarian reserve, endocrine function indicators, as well as the incidence of complications were compared between the groups.
resultThe TUAB group presented a shorter length of hospital stay, shorter vaginal bleeding time, shorter menstrual recovery time, and shorter mass disappearance time than the UAE group (all P <0.05). The patients in the TUAB group had lower β‑HCG, estradiol, and progesterone levels, and higher levels of luteinizing hormone and follicle‑stimulating hormone (all P <0.05). Furthermore, the TUAB patients had a larger mean ovary diameter, an increased antral follicle count, and an elevated level of anti‑Müllerian hormone, as compared with the individuals treated with UAE (all P <0.05). The total incidence of complications in the UAE and TUAB groups was 23.33% (7/30) and 6.67% (2/30), respectively (P <0.05).
conclusionsLaparoscopic TUAB for CSLR proved to be a more effective and safer CSP treatment method than UAE.
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.