ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Comparative Evaluation of Focused Ultrasound Ablation Combined with Curettage and Transvaginal Repair in the Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening form of ectopic pregnancy characterized by embryo implantation within the scar tissue of a prior cesarean delivery. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes between focused ultrasound ablation surgery (FUAS) combined with suction curettage under hysteroscopic guidance and transvaginal debridement and repair surgery (TDRS) in the treatment of CSP. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 78 patients with CSP and treated between 2017 and 2023. Among them, 25 received FUAS followed by hysteroscopic suction curettage, and 53 underwent TDRS. Key clinical indicators included intraoperative parameters, postoperative recovery, treatment costs, complications, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes. Results: No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, decline rates of β-human chorionic gonadotropin and hemoglobin, or menstrual recovery. FUAS was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (34.96 ± 28.90 vs 60.13 ± 22.87 minutes, Conclusion: Both FUAS combined with curettage and TDRS demonstrated safety and effectiveness in the treatment of CSP, with favorable post-treatment fertility outcomes. TDRS was associated with shorter hospitalization and lower medical costs and may be preferable for certain CSP subtypes, such as type III. Treatment selection should be individualized based on clinical characteristics.
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.