ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Comparison of long-term clinical effect and re-pregnant outcomes between hysteroscopic resection and laparoscopic defect repair in patients with non-severe cesarean scar defect: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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.
- Cesarean Scar Defect (Isthmocele) and Secondary Infertility: A Systematic Review of Reproductive Significance.Cureus · 2026Review
- A Case of Term Delivery After Cervical Cerclage Following Hysteroscopic and Laparoscopic Uterine Scar Repair for Cesarean Scar Disorder.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the long-term therapeutic effect and the re-pregnant outcomes of hysteroscopic resection and laparoscopic defect repair in the treatment of non-severe cesarean scar defect (CSD).
methodsThe clinical data of 154 CSD patients whose residual myometrium thickness (RMT) ≥ 3 mm that treated at Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei Province from January 2019 to May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed (74 accepted hysteroscopic resection and 80 received laparoscopic defect repair). We compared the general clinical data, laboratory tests, surgical related indicators and perioperative complications of two groups of patients, followed up and recorded the menstrual days at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months after surgery, as well as the obstetric outcomes of re-pregnant patients.
resultsThe surgical duration, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative vaginal bleeding days, hospital stay, and total treatment cost in hysteroscopic group were all obviously lower than those in laparoscopic group. More importantly, the incidence of postoperative complications such as fever and pelvic pain was also significantly lower in patients undergoing hysteroscopic surgery than those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. In terms of menstrual improvement, at the postoperative 3rd,6th and 12th month, the patients of hysteroscopic group had shorter menstrual days than laparoscopic group. Additionally, the postoperative re-pregnancy rate of hysteroscopic group (61.29%) was higher than that of laparoscopic group (55%). No serious obstetric complications such as placenta implantation and uterine rupture occurred in the re-pregnant patients of both groups.
conclusionsAlthough both hysteroscopic resection and laparoscopic defect repair have good clinical effects on improving the symptoms of non-severe CSD patients. But in contrast, the hysteroscopic resection displays the advantages of minimal trauma, shorter surgical time, less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stay, lower treatment costs, faster postoperative recovery, lower incidence of postoperative complications, and higher re-pregnancy rate. Hence, hysteroscopic resection is safe and effective, and could be the first choice for the treatment of no-severe CSD patients.
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.