ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Pregnancy outcomes and recurrence following surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a high-risk ectopic pregnancy, and the influence of surgical treatments on subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes remains poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate the impact of different surgical modalities on these outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 460 CSP patients admitted to the Ninth People's Hospital of Suzhou during the first trimester from January 2015 to December 2023. CSP was categorized into three types based on the implantation site, gestational sac morphology, and the myometrial thickness between the gestational sac and bladder. All patients underwent surgical treatment, which included ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage, hysteroscopic surgery, and combined hysteroscopic and laparoscopic surgery. Clinical information of the patients was systematically collected upon admission, and follow-up data regarding subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes were obtained via telephone and verified by medical records. The study outcomes included the incidence of CSP recurrence, secondary infertility, and pregnancy outcomes. Results: Among the 460 eligible CSP patients, 20 were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 440 patients, 74 attempted pregnancy after CSP treatment (16.8%). Among these 74 patients, 50 achieved live births (67.6%), 12 developed secondary infertility (16.2%), 2 had an ectopic pregnancy (2.7%), 2 experienced a miscarriage (2.7%), and 8 had CSP recurrence (10.8%). The mean interval between previous CSP treatment and subsequent conception was 16.3 ± 10.83 months. The reproductive outcomes following surgical treatment for CSP were not associated with age, gestational age, number of deliveries, miscarriages, cesarean sections, hospital stay, amenorrhea duration at the time of treatment, maximum diameter of the gestational sac, myometrial thickness of the uterine scar, CSP type, surgical method, or use of methotrexate (MTX) during treatment. However, the number of miscarriages was a contributing factor to secondary infertility, and the presence of post-treatment uterine adhesions was the primary risk factor for failure to achieve pregnancy after CSP surgery. Conclusion: In the long-term follow-up of women who have undergone CSP treatment, a high success rate in achieving pregnancy and a low recurrence rate were observed. Miscarriages and post-treatment uterine adhesions are risk factors for failure to achieve pregnancy after CSP surgery.
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.