Is High Intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A meta-analysis of the Chinese Population

Yanhui Li,Cuiju Hua
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.015
IF: 4.314
2022-11-27
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Abstract:Objective High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed by curettage or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage are relatively effective methods for cesarean scar pregnancy(CSP), which can provide a high success rate and re-pregnancy while reducing blood loss and adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pregnancy outcome of HIFU groups versus UAE groups with CSP. Data sources The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched to find studies about comparing the therapeutic effects of HIFU groups versus UAE groups. Methods of study selection Our primary endpoints were blood loss, adverse events, success rate, and re-pregnancy. We have implemented random effects models or fixed effects models to evaluate the pooled data. Tabulation, integration, and results Thirty-four eligible items were included in studies. The blood loss was significantly reduced [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.45, 95%CI, 2.21 to -0.68; p< 0.001)]. The adverse events occurred significantly less than UAE groups [odds ratio (OR) =0.36, 95%CI, 0.23 to 0.57; p<0.001). The success rate of HIFU groups was higher than UAE groups (OR =1.56, 95%CI, 1.05 to 2.32; p = 0.03), There were more pregnancies in HIFU groups than in the UAE groups (OR=1.64, 95%CI, 1.28 to 2.11; p <0.001). Conclusion In the CSP, the effect of HIFU groups is better than UAE groups: little blood loss, high success rate, few adverse events, and favorable fertility protection. Thus, it is a promising therapeutic method for patients.
obstetrics & gynecology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?