ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2025
Clinical investigation of fertility after uterine artery embolization combined with dilation and curettage(D&C) or D&C alone for cesarean scar pregnancies.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transcatheter Arterial Embolization (TAE) of Uterine Artery with Gelatin Sponge for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Current State of the Art Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the reproductive outcomes of patients with cesarean scar pregnancies (CSP) following uterine artery embolization (UAE) and dilation and curettage (D&C) treatments, and to evaluate the impact of UAE on fertility. Materials: and methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted. Patients diagnosed with CSP between 2019 and 2021 were included in the study. Clinical data and fertility outcomes were collected and reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups based on their treatment option: the UAE combined with D&C group and the D&C alone group. Results: A total of 91 CSP patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 49 were treated with D&C, while 42 received UAE combined with D&C. The average gestational age in the UAE group was significantly longer than that in the D&C group. The average diameter of the gestational mass was significantly larger in the UAE group than in the D&C group (42.2 ± 19.8 mm vs 23.8 ± 15.9 mm). The other clinical features were not significantly different between the two groups. The average menstrual recovery time was 1.0 ± 0.20 months (range: 1-2 months) in the D&C group, and 2.0 ± 2.85 months (range: 1-18 months) in the UAE combined with D&C group, with a significant difference between the two groups. The average menstrual blood volume (MBV) decreased in 79 % of patients in the UAE group, compared to 18 % in the D&C group, with a significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of pregnancy rate and birth rate (75 % vs 78 %, 63 % vs 56 %). Conclusion: UAE combined with D&C is an efficient and safe treatment for CSP. Our study showed that decreased MBV and longer menstrual recovery time in UAE combined with D&C group, but there are no statistical difference in fertility outcomes between the two groups, which suggests probably a reversible impact on the reproductive function.
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.