SynthesisWomen's health (London, England)
Exclusive hysteroscopic approach for the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: Systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound parameters for predicting high bleeding risk and efficacy of uterine artery embolization in gestational sac-type cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective single-center study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- The Role of Hysteroscopy for the Treatment of Interstitial Ectopic Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges in Rare and Non-Tubal Ectopic Pregnancies: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Management of an Advanced Low-Lying Implantation Disorder With Cervico-Isthmic Features at 29 Weeks of Gestation Presenting With PPROM: A Case Report and Literature Review.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increase in cesarean section rates in developed countries over the past decades have led to several direct postoperative complications or long-term effects for subsequent pregnancies like cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
objectiveMany therapies have been proposed for CSP treatment; however, there is no consensus on the best practice to adopt. Exclusive hysteroscopic treatment has been reported rarely but with good results. To understand the role, the safety, and effectiveness of this approach, we performed a systematic review of the literature.
designThis study is a systematic review. The literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews. DATA SOURCES AND
methodsWe searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases until December 2024, with a combination of keywords: ectopic pregnancy, scar pregnancy, hysteroscopy, and treatment. Case reports of randomized controlled trials, prospective controlled studies, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, case series, and case reports were considered eligible.
resultsWe identified 265 manuscripts, but at the end of the screening process, we included a total of 8 manuscripts and 158 patients. We have analyzed for each study the age of the patients, pregnancy history, gestational age, presenting symptoms, Transvaginal ultrasound findings, basal beta human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG), the type of hysteroscope used, complications and their management, and time of beta-hCG negativization.
conclusionThe hysteroscopic method represents a feasible and safe approach to the CSP treatment with good outcomes and reproducible even with high levels of beta-hCG and a gestational sac over the 3 cm. An initial gestational sac visualization with a diagnostic hysteroscope and the successive use of the resectoscope seems to be the most effective and safe method. Further multicentric studies and randomized clinical trials are needed to improve and standardize the technique.
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.