A Cesarean scar pregnancy is not an ectopic pregnancy

Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Do-Not-Miss Diagnosis

The rate of cesarean section (CS) for delivery has increased internationally, reaching 50% in some countries. Abnormal implantation of a new pregnancy at the site of the prior hysterotomy is an important complication because of the risks of hemorrhage, uterine rupture, and progression to placenta accreta spectrum (PAS), a condition with high morbidity with potential for catastrophic obstetric hemorrhage, maternal and fetal mortality, and loss of fertility. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) is the recommended term to describe these pregnancies, which are recognized on the basis of the sac implantation site, growth pattern, and associated abnormal perfusion. The true incidence of CSEP is unknown because the condition is likely underdiagnosed and underreported. The 2022 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine consult series notes that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are linked to difficulty in making the diagnosis of CSEP. The authors review the signs of CSEP at imaging, some pitfalls that may lead to delayed or missed diagnosis, and the consequences thereof. CSEPs must be differentiated from low implantation of a normal pregnancy, cervical ectopic pregnancy, and evolving pregnancy loss. Early recognition allows prompt and safe treatment that is usually surgical. Early treatment results in decreased health care costs, a shorter hospital stay, preservation of fertility, and prevention of iatrogenic preterm delivery, which is typical in cases that progress to PAS. Hysterectomy has serious negative psychologic consequences for patients of childbearing age; early diagnosis and prompt treatment of CSEP can prevent this often-ignored complication. ©RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: nuances in diagnosis and treatment

A cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) occurs when the embryo implants on the scar of a previous cesarean delivery. The number of births delivered by cesarean section has climbed by 50% over the last decade, from a nadir of 20.7% in 1996 to 32.1% in 2021. As a result, the incidence of CSEP has also increased. Because CSEP may cause serious morbidity such as life-threatening hemorrhage, uterine rupture, placental accreta spectrum, hysterectomy, and even mortality, accurate diagnosis and appropriate management of this condition are essential. This review focuses on the etiology, incidence, clinical diagnosis, and management of CSEPs.

Definition and diagnosis of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies

Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy is a rare type of ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy implants into a myometrial defect caused by a cesarean scar. Its incidence is predicted to increase, given the global increase in cesarean deliveries. As most cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies present as failing pregnancies or patients choose termination of pregnancy, there are limited data on their natural history. However, early first trimester diagnosis is essential, given the associated significant maternal morbidity. Transvaginal sonography is generally considered to be the optimal method for diagnosing cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. There is no evidence that MRI adds to the diagnostic accuracy, and it is therefore not recommended for routine evaluation of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. There is no agreed reference standard for the diagnosis of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy; therefore, the validity of several proposed sonographic diagnostic criteria reported by different authors remains unknown. There are also various suggested classification systems for cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy, which divide them in differet types. However, the proposals are very heterogeneous, and superiority of one classification system over another is yet to be established.

Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Current Understanding and Treatment Including Role of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

The incidence of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is increasing reflecting the global increase in cesarean section (CS) rate which has almost doubled since 2000. CSP differs from other types of ectopic pregnancy in its ability to progress while still carrying a significant risk of maternal morbidity. Little is known about precise etiology or natural history although current interest in the pathology of placenta accretes spectrum disorders might be enlightening. Early detection and treatment of CSP are challenging. Once diagnosed, the recommendation is to offer early termination of pregnancy because of the potential risks of continuing the pregnancy. However, as the likelihood of future pregnancy complications for any CSP varies depending on its individual characteristics, this might not always be necessary nor might it be the patient's preferred choice if she is asymptomatic, hemodynamically stable, and wants a baby. The literature supports an interventional rather than a medical approach but the safest and most efficient clinical approach to CSP in terms of treatment modality and service delivery has yet to be determined. This review aims to provide an overview of CSP etiology, natural history, and clinical implications. Treatment options and methods of CSP repair are discussed. We describe our experience in a large tertiary center in Singapore with around 16 cases/year where most treatment modalities are available as well as an "accreta service" for continuing pregnancies. We present a simple algorithm for approach to management including a method of triaging for those CSPs suitable for minimally invasive surgery.

A 10‐year retrospective cohort study of non‐tubal ectopic pregnancy management outcomes in an Australian tertiary centre

Introduction

Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy (NTEP) is a rare but significant early pregnancy complication which can result in maternal morbidity and mortality. There is however a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the management of NTEP.

Purpose

To evaluate the success rates of expectant, medical and surgical management in the treatment of NTEP at our tertiary centre.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2020. All NTEP were classified by ectopic sites. Primary management was classified by expectant, medical [systemic methotrexate (Sys-MTX) and/or local ultrasound-guided injection of MTX and/or KCl intra-sac (L-MTX, L-MTX/KCl)] or surgical. Primary management was considered successful if no change in intervention was required. Treatment complications were compared.

Results

Twenty-four NTEP were identified, which included 14 interstitial pregnancies (IP), 9 caesarean scar pregnancies (CSP) and 1 ovarian pregnancy (OP), which gave NTEP an incidence of 7.12% among all EP (4.15% for IP, 2.67% for CSP and 0.30% for OP). The success of primary surgical management was 100% (7/7), primary medical management was 76.9% (10/13) and primary expectant management was 33.3% (1/3). Primary medical management had a non-statistically significant greater mean time to serum ß-human Chorionic Gonadotrophin <5 IU/L, mean length of hospitalisation, mean number of follow-up visits and hospital re-presentation/readmissions compared to primary surgical management. There was no other difference in complication rates between the treatment management groups.

Conclusion

Surgery remains the most effective way to manage NTEP. However, medical management can be a safe and effective alternative option in carefully selected cases.

First-trimester uterine rupture: a case report and systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to present a case of first-trimester uterine rupture and perform a systematic review to identify common presentations, risk factors, and management strategies.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Scopus using a combination of key words related to "uterine rupture," "first trimester," and "early pregnancy" from database inception to September 30, 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

English language descriptions of uterine rupture at ≤14 weeks of gestation were included, and cases involving pregnancy termination and ectopic pregnancy were excluded.

METHODS

Outcomes for the systematic review included maternal demographics, description of uterine rupture, and specifics of uterine rupture diagnosis and management. Data were extracted to custom-made reporting forms. Median values were calculated for continuous variables, and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case reports and case series.

RESULTS

Overall, 61 cases of first-trimester uterine rupture were identified, including our novel case. First-trimester uterine ruptures occurred at a median gestation of 11 weeks. Most patients (59/61 [97%]) had abdominal pain as a presenting symptom, and previous uterine surgery was prevalent (44/61 [62%]), usually low transverse cesarean delivery (32/61 [52%]). The diagnosis of uterine rupture was generally made after surgical exploration (37/61 [61%]), with rupture noted in the fundus in 26 of 61 cases (43%) and in the lower segment in 27 of 61 cases (44%). Primary repair of the defect was possible in 40 of 61 cases (66%), whereas hysterectomy was performed in 18 of 61 cases (30%). Continuing pregnancy was possible in 4 of 61 cases (7%).

CONCLUSION

Uterine rupture is an uncommon occurrence but should be considered in patients with an acute abdomen in early pregnancy, especially in women with previous uterine surgery. Surgical exploration is typically needed to confirm the diagnosis and for management. Hysterectomy is not always necessary; primary uterine repair is sufficient in more than two-thirds of the cases to achieve hemostasis. Continuing pregnancy, although uncommon, is also possible.