Study on treatment effects and complications of different treatment methods for cesarean scar pregnancy
Zhuoni Xiao,Jing Yang,Wangming Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2019.01.006
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective\r\nTo compare the treatment effects and complications of different treatment methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and explore the optimal treatment method for CSP.\r\n\r\n\r\nMethods\r\nA total of 103 women who were diagnosed as CSP in Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from September 1, 2014, to May 31, 2017 were selected as research subjects. According to different treatment methods of CSP, they were divided into group A (n=26) who received the combination of local or systematic methotrexate (MTX) injection and surgery, group B (n=35) who received the combination of uterine arterial embolization (UAE) and surgery, and group C (n=42) who only received surgery. And the patients of group A were further divided into subgroup A1 (n=12, with treatment of gestational sac local injection of MTX and surgery), and subgroup A2 (n=14, with treatment of whole body intramuscular injection MTX and surgery) according to different treatment methods of MTX. The clinical data of group A, B and C were collected by retrospective method. The measurement data with abnormal distribution, such as the initial serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level before treatment, length of hospital stay, the decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge among group A, B and C were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis H rank sum test, and Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment was applied for further comparision between each two different groups. The categorical data, such as the incidences of intraoperative hemorrhage, intrauterine adhesion and embryo residue were analyzed with chi-square test among the three groups (group A, B and C) or four groups (subgroup A1 and A2, and group B, C). Fisher′s exact test with adjustment of P value was applied for further comparision between each two groups. The study was in accordance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki revised in 2013.\r\n\r\n\r\nResults\r\n①There were no statistical differences in age, gravidity, times of previous cesarean section, gestational age, the incidences of vaginal bleeding and lower abdomen pain, mean diameter of gestation sac, thickness of remnant myometrial wall, proportion of myometrial wall thickness ≤3 mm, incidence of fetal heartbeat, and proportions of superficial, partial, and full CSP among group A, B and C (P\u003e0.05). ②The initial serum β-hCG level before treatment of group A, B and C was 120 004 IU/L (16 720-181 727 IU/L), 38 219 IU/L (23 194-100 029 IU/L) and 22 557 IU/L (9 113-49 573 IU/L), respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=9.987, P=0.007). The results of further comparison showed that the initial serum β-hCG level before treatment of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (U=266.000, P=0.013) and group C (U=262.000, P=0.009). ③There were significant differences in the initial serum β-hCG level before treatment (χ2=21.010, P\u003c0.001), length of hospital stay (χ2=9.786, P=0.001) and decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge (χ2=37.590, P\u003c0.001) among group A, B and C. For further comparision, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group A compared with group B and C (U=170.000, 176.000, both P\u003c0.001), the incidence of intraoperative hemorrhage of group C was significantly higher compared with group B (P=0.014), and the decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge was significantly higher in group A and B compared with group C (U=171.000, P\u003c0.001; U=412.000, P=0.001). None intraoperative hemorrhage in occurred subgroup A1. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in subgroup A1 compared with group B and C (U=53.000, 43.000, both P\u003c0.001), and the decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge was significantly higher in subgroup A1 compared with subgroup A2 and group B, C (U=37.000, P=0.016; U=100.000, P=0.018; U=36.000, P\u003c0.001). ④The incidence of embryo residue in one month after surgery was 0 (0/26), 2.9% (1/35) and 21.4% (9/42) in group A, B and C, respectively. The incidence of intrauterine adhesion in six months after surgery was 0 (0/26), 20.0% (7/35) and 0 (0/35) in group A, B and C, respectively. There were significant differences in the incidence of embryo residue in one month after surgery (χ2=14.590, P\u003c0.001) and the incidence of intrauterine adhesion in six months after surgery (χ2=11.250, P=0.004) among group A, B and C. For further comparision, the incidence of embryo residue in one month after surgery was higher in group C compared with group A (P=0.010), the incidence of intrauterine adhesion in six months after surgery was higher in group B compared with group A and C (P=0.016, 0.002).\r\n\r\n\r\nConclusions\r\nUltrasound-guided local or systematic injection of MTX combined with surgery for CSP is reliable and leads to few complications. The combination of UAE with surgery should be chosen carefully because of its potential fertility complication. Because this study is just a retrospective research, the effects of local or systemic injection of MTX, UAE and other different treatment methods for CSP, still need to be confirmed by multi-center, large-sample, randomized controlled studies.\r\n\r\n\r\nKey words: \r\nUterine artery embolization; Cesarean scar pregnancy; Methotrexate; Injections; Intrauterine adhesion; Fertility; Embryo residue; Pregnant women