Selection of Laparoscopy or Laparotomy for Treating Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Study

Laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: A scoping review

Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP) is a life-threatening condition that may lead to uterine rupture and severe bleeding when left untreated. Treatment includes expectant, medical, and surgical options. This review aimed to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the management of CSP. A comprehensive search of PubMed and The Cochrane Library was carried out with findings dating up to May 2024. Several screening processes were done by two reviewers and 48 articles mentioning the laparoscopic management were included in this review. Laparoscopy allows adhesiolysis, bladder dissection, and complete CSP excision in addition to simultaneous repair of the isthmocele, reinforcing the scarred myometrium to prevent abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, CSP recurrence, and rupture. To ensure a successful indication of laparoscopy as the main treatment option, the CSP gestational sac should be > 32.5 mm, with a myometrial thickness of < 2 mm. Laparoscopy for CSP excision is a durable and highly effective method with minimal complication rates reported in the current literature. Moreover, it seems to be the most effective in the case of CSP embedded within myometrium with or without serosal involvement.

Treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) undergoing treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were women with CSP undergoing treatment. The primary outcome was successful treatment for CSP, defined as no need for additional medical or surgical strategies. Secondary outcomes were the type of additional treatment (surgical or medical), need for blood transfusion, emergency laparotomy, hysterectomy, post-treatment complications.All these outcomes were explored in women undergoing single and compound treatments for CSP. Furthermore, we performed a separate sub-group analysis only including studies which reported on the outcomes of elective treatments. Random effects meta-analyses were used to analyze the data and results reported as pooled proportions or odd ratio (OR).

RESULTS

176 studies (13431 women with CSP undergoing treatment) were included.Successful treatment after primary intervention was achieved in 86.2% (95% CI 82.3-89.7) of women with CSP undergoing treatment with ultrasound guided suction curettage, 72.4% (95% CI 64.8-79.3) with systemic MTX, 81.6% (95% CI 72.3-89.3) with local MTX, 83.9% (95% CI 66.7-95.6) with interventional radiology, 90.42% (95% CI 82.9-96.0) with hysteroscopy, 96.1% (95% CI (92.3-98.6) with laparoscopy and 92.6 with high intensity focused ultrasound (95% CI 78.2-99.6). Post-treatments complications were reported in 3.5% (95% CI 1.7-6.0) of women treated with systemic MTX, 5.9% (95% CI 0.8-15.1) with local MTX or KCl, 1.2% (95% CI 0.1-3.5) with interventional radiology, 1.4% (95% CI 0.4-2.9) with hysteroscopy, 5.5% (95% CI 0.4-25.7) with high intensity focused ultrasound and in none of the cases treated with ultrasound guided suction curettage.When considering compound treatments, successful resolution of CSP was achieved in 91.9% (95% CI 88.0-95.10) of women treated with interventional radiology followed by curettage, 83.3% (95% CI 68.8-93.8) with systemic MTX and curettage, 79.4% (95% CI 56.3-95.2) with local MTX and curettage, 96.2% (95% CI 92.3-98.7) with curettage followed by single or double balloon insertion in the uterine cavity, 98.3% (95% CI 95.9-99.7) with high intensity focused ultrasound followed by curettage, 91.1% (95% CI 3.4-97.0) with interventional radiology followed by removal of CSP with hysteroscopy, 64.3% (95% CI 13.8-99.2) with interventional radiology and systemic MTX and in 95.5% (95% CI 92.9-97.5) with curettage and hysteroscopy.When considering studies reporting a comparison between different treatments, there was no difference between systemic vs local MTX in the primary outcome. Curettage was associated with a higher chance of achieving a successful treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of treatments for CSP have been reported in the published literature. All treatments described for CSP are apparently equally effective in treating this condition. The findings from this systematic review highlight the need for adopting a common definition and outcome reporting of CSP to better elucidate its natural history, estimate the magnitude of maternal complication after treatment and design appropriately powered RCT to elucidate the optimal treatment of CSP according to its ultrasound phenotype and gestational age at treatment, in terms of effective resolution of the condition and risk of post-intervention complications.

Systematic evaluation of the efficacy of treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a type of ectopic pregnancy associated with severe complications, including significant hemorrhage, the potential need for hysterectomy, and life-threatening risks. Currently, two classification methods exist for CSP: Vial (type Ia and IIa) and Chinese Expert's Consensus (type Ib, type IIb, and type IIIb). However, these methods have limitations in guiding the selection of appropriate treatment plans for CSP. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of various treatments for CSP within our clinic.

METHOD

Our study included 906 patients with CSP from January 2013 to December 2018. The chi-squared test and logistic analysis were used to compare the clinical characteristics. The median and interquartile range (IQR) was calculated. We also analyzed whether preoperative application of methotrexate (MTX) could improve surgical outcomes and the relevant characteristics of misdiagnosed CSP patients.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in gestational age, gestational sac diameter, gestational sac width, gestational sac area, remnant myometrial thickness, vaginal bleeding and preoperative hemoglobin levels (p < 0.001) but not in the incidence of residual tissue (p = 0.053). The other factors (intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin decline, first hemoglobin after operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after operation, transfusion and duration of catheter drain) were significantly different (p < 0.001). For type Ia and type Ib CSP, 39.3% and 40.2% of patients were treated with dilatation and curettage (D&E) under ultrasound, respectively. For type IIa and type IIIb CSP, 29.9% and 62.7% of patients were treated with laparotomy, respectively. There were no differences in surgical methods, residual tissue and reoperation between the MTX and non-MTX groups (p = 0.20), but liver damage, hospital stay and pain perception were more remarkable in the MTX group. It is noteworthy that 14% of the patients were misdiagnosed with an intrauterine pregnancy. The incidence of misdiagnosis in type IIa CSP patients was higher than that in type Ia CSP patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For type I CSP patients, D&E under ultrasound or D&E under hysteroscopy should be recommended. For type IIIb CSP patients, operative resection should be used. It is currently difficult to choose the appropriate treatment methods for type IIa or type IIb CSP patients.

Clinical Application of a New Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Classification and Evaluation System and a Risk Scoring System

Objective

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is an uncommon form of ectopic pregnancy that carries the risk of severe bleeding. To date, there has not been a universally accepted classification and treatment strategy. We performed this study to establish a risk scoring system and new CSP classification system for CSP and evaluate its efficacy.

Methods

A total of five groups were generated based on different methods of treatment, and the factors that increase the risk of intraoperative bleeding were examined in our center from 2013 to 2018. The construction of a risk scoring system in this study was based on the use of the chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis. To determine the appropriate cutoff scores, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were generated.

Results

We identified the main high-risk factors for excessive intraoperative hemorrhage during CSP surgery through univariate and multivariate analyses. Within this investigation, the risk factors included gestational sac location and gestational sac diameter. Through analysis, an optimal cutoff score of 3 was determined, and the area under the ROC curve was calculated to be 0.8113 (95% CI=0.7696-0.8531). A score ranging from 0-3 was classified as low risk, while a score ranging from 5-7 was classified as high risk. Additionally, a new classification system for CSP has been established based on sonographic parameters. We also established a diagnostic and treatment process for CSP patients according to the risk scoring method and new CSP classification.

Conclusion

We identified the high-risk factors associated with bleeding during CSP surgery and developed a scoring system incorporating these factors. The utilization of this novel CSP typing method, in conjunction with the risk scoring system, can effectively inform doctors in their decision-making process concerning treatment strategies for patients with CSP.

Efficacy, Safety and Outcomes of the Laparoscopic Management of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy as a Single Therapeutic Approach: A Case Series

A standardized consensus for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is lacking. The study objective is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and outcomes of the laparoscopic management of CSP as a single therapeutic surgical approach without being preceded by vascular pretreatment or vasoconstrictors injection. This is a retrospective bi-centric study, a case series. Eight patients with a future desire to conceive underwent the laparoscopic treatment of unruptured CSPs. Surgery consisted of "en bloc" excision of the deficient uterine scar with the adherent tissue of conception, followed by immediate uterine repair. The data collected for each patient was age, gestity, parity, number of previous c-sections, pre-pregnancy isthmocele-related symptoms, gestational age, fetal cardiac activity, initial β-human chorionic gonadotropin levels, intra-operative blood loss, blood transfusion, operative time and the postoperative complications, evaluated according to Clavien-Dindo classification. The CSP was successfully removed in all patients by laparoscopy. The surgical outcomes were favorable. All patients with histories of isthmocele-related symptoms reported postoperative resolution of symptoms. The median residual myometrium thickness increased significantly from 1.2 mm pre-operatively to 8 mm 3 to 6 months after surgery. The laparoscopic management seems to be an appropriate treatment of CSP when performed by skilled laparoscopic surgeons. It can be safely proposed as a single surgical therapeutic approach. Larger series and further prospective studies are needed to confirm this observation and to affirm the long-term gynecological and obstetrical outcomes of this management.

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.