ArticleScientific reports2025
Reproductive outcomes in women with prior cesarean scar pregnancies over six years.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Sonographic Predictors and Long-Term Reproductive Outcomes in Recurrent Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Reproductive Outcomes Following High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.International journal of women's health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To explore the impact of two surgical methods, ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration and laparoscopic scar resection with repair on the reproductive outcomes of patients with caesarean scar pregnancy. We systematically selected 562 women who had undergone surgical treatment for caesarean scar pregnancies at a tertiary hospital in China between May 2017 and July 2022. After 6 years of follow-up, the reproductive outcomes of 100 women who desired future pregnancies were ultimately tracked. We retrospectively analysed the clinical data and follow-up records of these women to explore the impact of the two surgical methods on their reproductive outcomes. Among those 100 patients, 43(43%) live births, 19(19%) miscarriages, 15(15%) RCSP, and 38 (38%) cases of secondary infertility. Comparison of the clinical data between the ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration and laparoscopic scar resection with repair groups showed that patients in the latter had longer hospital stays, higher gestational age at treatment, greater maximum GS diameter, and lower BMI (P < 0.05). Women with thicker myometrial layers at the caesarean scar site were more likely to have live births in subsequent pregnancies (P = 0.044; HR 1.207; 95% CI 1.001-1.909). Older women were at higher risk of miscarriage and recurrent caesarean scar pregnancies (P = 0.028; HR 1.868; 95% CI 1.765-1.985).The reproductive outcomes of women with caesarean scar pregnancies after surgical treatment are optimistic.The reproductive outcomes were not dependent on the type of surgical methods used, either ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration or laparoscopic scar resection with repair for the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy. Advancing maternal age in subsequent pregnancies is a risk factor for adverse reproductive outcomes and warrants attention.
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.