Outcomes of reproduction following cesarean scar pregnancy treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Treatment Outcomes of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Under a Novel Classification System: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the new classification system published by Jordans et al for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) can guide management and treatment outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study of women diagnosed with CSP from October 2010 to December 2022 in a single tertiary center was performed. Sonographic records of these women were classified into three types according to the classification published by Jordans et al. Treatment outcomes were compared across each type of CSP.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 84 women, where 60 (71.4%), 17 (20.2%), and 7 (8.3%) of them were categorized into Type 1, 2, and 3 CSP, respectively. A total of 47 (55.9%) women were managed with methotrexate, 22 (26.2%) underwent surgical management of the CSP without removal of the Cesarean section (CS) niche, and 11 (13.1%) underwent surgery to remove the CSP and the CS niche. Overall treatment success rates for medical management and surgical management were 70 and 97%, respectively. Four women were managed expectantly and continued their pregnancies, among which three carried beyond 34 weeks and had good neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The classification as published by Jordans et al is easily replicable and readily implemented clinically. Our findings show that a higher proportion of Type 1 and Type 2 CSP were treated successfully by a less invasive medical approach with a high success rate, whereas most Type 3 CSP required surgical resection to successfully remove the CSP and the CS niche. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings and further validate the clinical utility of this nomenclature system.

Surgical treatment and reproductive outcomes in caesarean scar pregnancy at a single center

BACKGROUND

To investigate factors associated with different reproductive outcomes in patients with Caesarean scar pregnancies (CSPs).

METHODS

Between May 2017 and July 2022, 549 patients underwent ultrasound-guided uterine aspiration and laparoscopic scar repair at the Gynaecology Department of Hubei Maternal and Child Health Hospital. Ultrasound-guided uterine aspiration was performed in patients with type I and II CSPs, and laparoscopic scar repair was performed in patients with type III CSP. The reproductive outcomes of 100 patients with fertility needs were followed up and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients, 43% had live births (43/100), 19% had abortions (19/100), 38% had secondary infertility (38/100), 15% had recurrent CSPs (RCSPs) (15/100). The reproductive outcomes of patients with CSPs after surgical treatment were not correlated with age, body mass index, time of gestation, yields, abortions, Caesarean sections, length of hospital stay, weeks of menopause during treatment, maximum diameter of the gestational sac, thickness of the remaining muscle layer of the uterine scar, type of CSP, surgical method, uterine artery embolisation during treatment, major bleeding, or presence of uterine adhesions after surgery. Abortion after treatment was the only risk factor affecting RCSPs (odds ratio 11.25, 95% confidence interval, 3.302-38.325; P < 0.01) and it had a certain predictive value for RCSP occurrence (area under the curve, 0.741).

CONCLUSIONS

The recurrence probability of CSPs was low, and women with childbearing intentions after CSPs should be encouraged to become pregnant again. Abortion after CSP is a risk factor for RCSP. No significant difference in reproductive outcomes was observed between the patients who underwent ultrasound-guided uterine aspiration and those who underwent laparoscopic scar repair for CSP.

Cesarean Scar Pregnancy With Surgical and Conservative Managements: A Case Report

A cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy. Proper diagnosis and management of CSP are incredibly important secondary to the risk of uterine rupture and life-threatening hemorrhage. Various medical and surgical management have been described previously. This report looks at two cases of CSP diagnosed at an urban hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. The first woman was 30 years old with a history of five prior CS. She was referred from an abortion clinic for CSP at 6 weeks 2 days gestation. She did not desire future fertility and opted for a hysterectomy. The second woman was 38 years old with a history of three prior CS presenting with vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain and found to have a CSP with a gestation sac measuring 5 weeks 1 day. Given the patient's desires for future fertility, she was treated with a two-dose regimen of systemic intramuscular methotrexate (MTX) at 1 mg/kg with successful resolution of CSP and subsequent intrauterine pregnancy. Due to the high risk of uterine rupture and hemorrhage with CSP, it is important to have a high index of suspicion for diagnosis. Due to the rarity of CSP, and thus difficulty creating quality prospective trials, there is no consensus on the best management yet. Although conservative treatment carries high failure risk, shared decision-making incorporating future fertility desires should be considered when determining management of CSP, and when surgical management is considered a minimally invasive approach should be the standard of care in surgical management.

Efficacy and safety of treatment modalities for cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Cesarean scar pregnancy may lead to varying degrees of complications. There are many treatment methods for it, but there are no unified or recognized treatment strategies. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to observe the efficacy and safety of treatment modalities for patients with cesarean scar pregnancy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to January 31, 2024. In addition, relevant reviews and meta-analyses were manually searched for additional references.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Our study incorporated head-to-head trials involving a minimum of 10 women diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy through ultrasound imaging or magnetic resonance imaging, encompassing a detailed depiction of primary interventions and any supplementary measures. Trials with a Newcastle-Ottawa scale score <4 were excluded because of their low quality.

METHODS

We conducted a random-effects network meta-analysis and review for cesarean scar pregnancy. Group-level data on treatment efficacy and safety, reproductive outcomes, study design, and demographic characteristics were extracted following a predefined protocol. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale for cohort studies and case series. The main outcomes were efficacy (initial treatment success) and safety (complications), of which summary odds ratios and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

Seventy-three trials (7 randomized controlled trials) assessing a total of 8369 women and 17 treatment modalities were included. Network meta-analyses were rooted in data from 73 trials that reported success rates and 55 trials that reported complications. The findings indicate that laparoscopy, transvaginal resection, hysteroscopic curettage, and high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage demonstrated the highest cure rates, as evidenced by surface under the cumulative ranking curve rankings of 91.2, 88.2, 86.9, and 75.3, respectively. When compared with suction curettage, the odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for efficacy were as follows: 6.76 (1.99-23.01) for laparoscopy, 5.92 (1.47-23.78) for transvaginal resection, 5.00 (1.99-23.78) for hysteroscopic curettage, and 3.27 (1.08-9.89) for high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage. Complications were more likely to occur after receiving uterine artery chemoembolization, suction curettage, methotrexate+hysteroscopic curettage, and systemic methotrexate; hysteroscopic curettage, high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage, and Lap were safer than the other options derived from finite evidence; and the confidence intervals of all the data were wide.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that laparoscopy, transvaginal resection, hysteroscopic curettage, and high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage procedures exhibit superior efficacy with reduced complications. The utilization of methotrexate (both locally guided injection and systemic administration) as a standalone medical treatment is not recommended.

The use of pressure balloons in the treatment of first trimester cesarean scar pregnancy

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is among the most severe complications of cesarean delivery. CSP refers to the abnormal implantation of the gestational sac in the area of the prior cesarean delivery (CD), potentially leading to severe hemorrhage, uterine rupture, or development of placenta accreta spectrum disorders (PAS). The management of women with CSP has not been standardized yet. In women who opted for termination, discussion about the treatments should consider maternal symptoms, gestational age at intervention, and the future reproductive risk. A multitude of treatments, either medical or surgical, for CSP has been reported in the published literature. The present review aims to provide up-to-date information on a recently introduced minimally invasive treatments for CSP, including the single and double balloon catheter. The methodology of using the single or double catheter is described in a step-by-step fashion illustrated by pictures as well as video recordings. Both catheters have their deserved place to be used as a primary method for terminating scar pregnancies as well as using them as adjuncts to other treatments. They were successfully used by multiple individual practitioners and institutions due to their simplicity and low complication rates. The rare, but possible post-procedure complications such as recurrent CSP and enhanced myometrial vascularity are also mentioned.

Reproductive outcome after cesarean scar pregnancy

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) rate is rising worldwide, in parallel with the rising rates of cesarean delivery. Multiple therapeutic strategies and a timely diagnosis have led to a successful management in most cases, with many women preserving fertility after treatment. Despite this, still little is known regarding pregnancy outcomes after a CSP. The main adverse outcomes reported after CSP are recurrence of CSP, miscarriage, preterm birth, placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders and uterine rupture. In addition, little is known about the influence of the different treatments on subsequent pregnancy outcomes after a CSP. Being aware of the impact of the different management strategies on the fertility outcomes is highly relevant to counsel pregnant women after a CSP. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an up-to-date review of the reproductive outcomes of women with a history of CSP and of the influence of various treatments on subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

Methotrexate for CSPs

Expectant management of a cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is associated with a high risk of severe maternal morbidity. Therefore, most experts recommend immediate termination after the diagnosis of a CSP. However, there is no consensus about the optimal management of a CSP in terms of efficacy, safety, and preservation of future fertility. Methotrexate (MTX) is a folic acid antagonist that has been largely used to treat tubal ectopic pregnancies. This review summarizes the current knowledge and uncertainties about the administration of MTX as a medical or non-invasive option to terminate a CSP; the preferred injection route (systemic or local/intragestational), the comparison with other treatment modalities, and the prognostic factors for MTX success will be discussed, as well as the recommendations from scientific societies.

Caesarean scar pregnancy: is there a light in the end of the tunnel?

PURPOSE

To summarize and present a single tertiary center's 25 years of experience managing patients with caesarean scar pregnancies and their long-term reproductive and obstetric outcomes.

METHODS

A 25-year retrospective study included women diagnosed with CSP from 1996 to 2020 in one tertiary center. Data were retrieved from the medical records and through a telephone interview. Diagnosis was made by sonography and color Doppler. Treatments included methotrexate, suction curettage, hysteroscopy, embolization and wedge resection by laparoscopy or laparotomy as a function of the clinical manifestations, the physicians' decisions, patient counseling, and parental requests.

RESULTS

Analysis of the records recovered 60 cases of CSP (two of whom were recurrent). All patients had complete resolution with no indication for hysterectomy. Thirty-five patients had a long-term follow-up, of whom 24 (68.6%) attempted to conceive again and 22 (91.6%) succeeded. There were 17/22 (77.3%) patients with at least one live birth, 3/22 (13.6%) spontaneous miscarriages and 2/22 (9%) recurrent CSP. The obstetric complications included abnormal placentation 5/19 (26.3%), premature rupture of membranes 2/19 (10.5%), preterm delivery 4/19 (21%) and abnormality of the uterine scar 2/19 (10.5%). There was one case of neonatal death due to complications of prematurity 1/19 (5.2%).

CONCLUSION

CSP treatment focusing on reducing morbidity and preserving fertility has encouraging long-term reproductive and obstetric outcomes. In subsequent pregnancies, we recommend performing an early first trimester vaginal scan to map the location of the new pregnancy, followed by close monitoring given the obstetric complications mentioned above.

Effectiveness, complications, and reproductive outcomes after cesarean scar pregnancy management: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is a dramatic rise in cesarean deliveries worldwide, leading to higher complication rates in subsequent pregnancies. One of these complications is a cesarean scar pregnancy. During the last decades, treatment options for cesarean scar pregnancies have changed, and less invasive interventions have been employed to preserve fertility and reduce morbidity. However, the optimal treatment approach and the influence of various treatments on reproductive outcomes have to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes after cesarean scar pregnancy management.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women determined to have a cesarean scar pregnancy from 2010 to 2021 at a tertiary referral center, the Amsterdam University Medical Center, in the Netherlands. Outcomes of the following management strategies were compared: expectant management, methotrexate, curettage with temporary cervical cerclage, or a laparoscopic niche resection. We performed a curettage if the cesarean scar pregnancy did not cross the serosal line of the uterus, and a laparoscopic niche resection was performed if the cesarean scar pregnancy crossed the serosal line. The main outcomes were treatment efficacy and time to subsequent ongoing pregnancy or pregnancy leading to a live birth.

RESULTS

Of the 60 included women, 5 (8.3%) were managed expectantly, 8 (13.3%) were treated with methotrexate, 31 (51.8%) were treated with a curettage, and 16 (26.7%) with a laparoscopic niche resection. The groups were not comparable. The gestational age and human chorionic gonadotropin levels were generally higher in women who received methotrexate or a laparoscopic niche resection. Additional treatment in the conservative group was needed for 4 (80%) women after expectant management and for 7 (87.5%) women after methotrexate treatment. In the surgical group, all 31 women treated with a curettage and all 16 treated with a laparoscopic niche resection did not require additional treatment. The subsequent ongoing pregnancy rate after cesarean scar pregnancy management was 81.1% (30/37) among women who wished to conceive, with a live birth rate of 78.4% (29/37); 1 woman was in her third trimester of pregnancy at the time of analyses. The time between cesarean scar pregnancy management and subsequent ongoing pregnancy was 4 months (interquartile range, 3-6; P=.02) after expectant management, 18 months (interquartile range, 13-22) after initial methotrexate treatment, 5 months (interquartile range, 3-14; P=.01) after a curettage, and 6 months (interquartile range, 4-15; P=.03) after a laparoscopic niche resection.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment of a cesarean scar pregnancy led to a high success rate without additional interventions, high pregnancy rates with a short time interval between treatment, and subsequent pregnancy leading to an ongoing pregnancy or live birth. Conservative management, both with expectant management and methotrexate treatment, led to high (re)intervention rates. Different management approaches are indicated for different types of cesarean scar pregnancies.

Reproductive outcomes of cesarean scar pregnancies treated with uterine artery embolization combined with curettage

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review the reproductive outcomes of women with a cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) treated with dilation and curettage (D&C) after uterine artery embolization (UAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study to review women who received UAE followed by D&C for CSP between January 2010 and December 2019 at the Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua in Taiwan. Data were collected from both electronic and paper medical records. Patients were contact via phone call to follow up reproductive outcomes between January 2021 and March 2021. These subsequent reproductive outcomes (including pregnancy rate, secondary infertility rate, miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and recurrent CSP rate) were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 53 cases of women who received UAE followed by D&C for CSP were identified. The women's average age was 34.8 ± 5.1 years. The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 6.2 ± 1.1 weeks. The mean level for human chorionic gonadotropin was 23,407.7 ± 29,105.5 mIU/ml. The average of blood loss during D&C was 19.2 ± 43.6 ml. The average hospitalization time after D&C was 3.5 ± 1.1 days. Of the 53 cases, 10 patients were lost to follow-up and 43 patients agreed to follow-up on reproductive outcomes in 2021. Twenty-three patients who desired to conceive were analyzed. Nineteen out of these 23 women (82.6%) succeeded in conceiving again and gave birth to 15 healthy babies (78.9%). Only one woman (1/19, 5.3%) experienced recurrence of CSP. The average time interval between previous CSP treatment and subsequent conception was 10.4 ± 6.7 months.

CONCLUSION

UAE combined with curettage treatment in CSP patients results in a positive rate of subsequent pregnancy outcomes. This minimally invasive procedure may be considered as one of the treatment options for CSP, as it enables preservation of fertility after treatment.

Conservative Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy located in the lower uterine segment. The current increase in the percentage of cesarean sections is accompanied by significant growth in the incidence of CSP, while advances in ultrasound diagnostic techniques have led to a greater number of CSP diagnoses. A misdiagnosed CSP, or one that is diagnosed too late, is life-threatening to the pregnant patient and predisposes her to complications such as uterine bleeding or rupture, which often require hysterectomy and thus result in the irreversible loss of fertility. We present the case of a 50-year-old woman with a history of undiagnosed CSP after multiple consultations for intermittent bleeding and hemorrhage. She was diagnosed by ultrasound and the diagnosis was confirmed by hysteroscopy. She underwent conservative medical treatment that was successful.

Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and a Literature Review

Background and Objectives: Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) refers to placental implantation on or in the scar of a previous caesarean section and represents a potentially life-threatening condition. CSP is considered a diagnostic challenge in obstetrics, with the diagnosis relying mainly on transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and the management depending upon case presentation and available healthcare infrastructures. Case Presentation: We present a case of 34-year-old G3P2 with a history of two-previous caesarean sections referred to the outpatient gynaecology clinic of our Department at the 7th week (7/40) of gestation with abnormal early pregnancy TVS findings, illustrating the gestational sac attached to the caesarean scar and a foetal pole with evidence of foetal cardiac activity. We discuss the outcome of an alternative combined medical and surgical approach we followed as well as an updated review of the current literature. Conclusions: The ideal management of CSP requires tertiary centers, equipment availability and experienced healthcare professionals capable of dealing with any possible complication, as well as individualized treatment based on each case presentation.

Uterine Artery Embolization Combined with Subsequent Suction Evacuation as Low-Risk Treatment for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy

Objective: The aim of this study is to propose a standardized management of care for patients diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). There are two types of CSP: Type 1 (on the scar) vs. type 2 (in the niche). To date there is no international standard to predict the extent of invasion or the optimal management of CSP. Materials and methods: We used intramuscular methotrexate injection followed by uterine artery embolization combined with suction evacuation as a conservative approach for the treatment of seven patients diagnosed with CSP. Our inclusion criteria, to be satisfied simultaneously, were established as follows: (1) patients with CSP; (2) early gestational age ≤ 9 weeks, and (3) written consent of the proposed treatment of the patient. Results: This course of treatment produced a positive outcome in all cases. We did not have any complications (e.g., emergency hysterectomy, perforation of the uterine cavity, severe hemorrhage, or endometritis) during the procedures or in the follow-up. The most important predictors of successful management are early diagnosis of CSP and orientation of the invasive trophoblast opposite to the scar. Conclusions: The main finding from this series of cases is that associating systemic methotrexate and uterine artery embolization provides efficient and low-risk management of CSP. This treatment regime is adequate for both types of CSPs. We consider that early localization diagnosis of pregnancy following a cesarean delivery is mandatory for CSP morbidity prevention.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, November 2021

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of autonomy and respect in maternity care and commentaries on reviews focused on whether to induce women who present with mild preeclampsia in the late preterm period and the extent to which urinary incontinence symptoms prevent women from participating in exercise. It also includes a brief update about the USPSTF guidelines on screening for gestational diabetes.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, September 2021

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes an assessment of safety of birth centers in the United States and commentaries on reviews focused on aspirin prophylaxis in pregnancy and the new gestational weight gain evidence summary from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.