Efficacy of different treatment of 134 cases of cesarean scar pregnancy

Efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) presents a significant clinical challenge owing to the associated risks of uterine scar rupture, severe haemorrhage and adverse maternal outcomes. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of combining high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) with suction curettage for treating CSP.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in four databases, namely PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library, to identify published studies evaluating the use of HIFU combined with suction curettage to treat CSP. Intraoperative blood loss, treatment success rate, and reproductive results were the primary outcomes assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies involving 1251 patients with CSP, all of whom received preoperative HIFU therapy were included. The average hospital stay was 6.22 days, the intraoperative blood loss was 26.29 ml and the incidence of adverse events was 15.60%, including abdominal or lower limb pain, fever, vaginal bleeding, haematuria and vomiting. Furthermore, post-treatment follow-up showed that serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin levels were rapidly normalized (average of 25.48 days) and menstruation returned (average of 33.03 days). The treatment had a remarkable success rate of 97.60% and a subsequent pregnancy rate of 68.70%.

CONCLUSION

While the combination of HIFU and suction-curettage may induce common adverse effects such as lower abdominal or limb pain, these reactions typically do not necessitate therapeutic intervention. Additionally, the size of the gestational sac is a determinant of the procedure's success. In conclusion, HIFU combined with suction curettage demonstrates promising clinical efficacy, safety and favourable reproductive outcomes in managing CSP.

Other treatments for CSP

Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an increasingly common clinical conundrum. The non-curettage surgical management of CSP can be categorised into hysteroscopic, vaginal, laparoscopic, and open removal modalities and the choice of treatment is surgeon-dependent. A systematic review of original studies reporting surgical treatment outcomes of CSP until March 2023 was conducted to evaluate the non-curettage surgical management of this highly morbid condition. A total of 60 studies of mostly weak methodological quality were identified involving 6720 CSP cases. Success rates were generally high across all treatment modalities although highest in vaginal and laparoscopic excisional approaches. Morbidity was most associated with haemorrhage although unplanned hysterectomy rates remained low across all treatment groups. Subsequent pregnancies are associated with morbidity despite being underreported and the impact of CSP treatment on future pregnancy is poorly understood. Substantive study heterogeneity precludes meta-analyses of pooled data and treatment superiority has not been demonstrated.

Efficacy and Safety of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Compared with Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Section Pregnancy: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) compared with uterine artery embolization (UAE) in cesarean section pregnancy (CSP) and to calculate the success rate of HIFU.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase on September 30, 2022, and the related studies were independently reviewed by 2 researchers.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Medical subject headings and relevant terms from other articles were used for the database search. Patients with CSP who underwent HIFU were included in this analysis. The following results were recorded: success rate, intraoperative blood loss, time for serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-HCG) normalization and menstruation recovery, adverse events, hospitalization time, and hospitalization expenses. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scoring system and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies system to evaluate the quality of the studies.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data from 6 studies were used to compare the efficacy and safety of UAE and HIFU. We pooled the success rate of HIFU by including 10 studies. No data overlap between the 10 studies. Success rate was higher in the HIFU group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.41; p = .03; I2 = 0). We performed the meta-analysis of single rate in R 4.2.0 software, and the success rate of HIFU group was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96; p = .04; I2 = 48%). Intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]= -21.94 mL; 95% CI -67.34 to 23.47; p = .34; I2 = 99%) and time for serum beta-HCG normalization (MD = 3.13 days; 95% CI 0.02-6.25; p = .05; I2 = 70%) were not significantly different. Time to menstruation recovery (MD = 2.72 days; 95% CI 1.32-4.12; p = .0001; I2 = 0) in the UAE group was shorter than that in the HIFU group. Adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.22-1.29; p = .16; I2 = 81%). Hospitalization time was not significantly different between the HIFU and UAE groups (MD = -0.41 days; 95% CI -1.14 to 0.31; p = .26; I2 = 55%). Hospitalization expenses of the HIFU group were lower than those of the UAE group (MD = -7488.49 yuan; 95% CI -8460.13 to -6516.84; p <.000; I2 = 0). Heterogeneity of the time for beta-HCG normalization, adverse events, and hospitalization time were improved after excluding one study, and HIFU showed better results in the sensitivity analysis of adverse events and hospitalization time.

CONCLUSION

According to our analysis, HIFU demonstrated satisfactory treatment success, accompanied by similar intraoperative blood loss, slower normalization of beta-HCG levels, and menstruation recovery, but potentially shorter hospitalization time, lower adverse events and lower costs than UAE. Therefore, HIFU is an effective, safe, and economical treatment for patients with CSP. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of the significant heterogeneity. However, large and strictly designed clinical trials are required to verify these conclusions.