Comparison of two different suction curettage methods in cesarean scar pregnancy treatment.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Burak Elmas, Neslihan Ozturk, Emine Kizil, Bergen Laleli Koc, Ugurcan Zorlu, Duygu Tugrul Ersak, Turkan Dikici Aktas, Asuman Erten, Salim Erkaya
{"title":"Comparison of two different suction curettage methods in cesarean scar pregnancy treatment.","authors":"Burak Elmas, Neslihan Ozturk, Emine Kizil, Bergen Laleli Koc, Ugurcan Zorlu, Duygu Tugrul Ersak, Turkan Dikici Aktas, Asuman Erten, Salim Erkaya","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06917-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), the incidence of which is increasing, can lead to life-threatening consequences. In this study, it was aimed to compare the results of two different ultrasound-assisted suction curettage (SC) approaches that we applied to endogenous type CSPs in different time periods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who were diagnosed with CSP and treated with SC in the early pregnancy service between January 2012 and March 2019 were included in the study. While classical SC was applied until December 2016, patients were treated with SC modified by us after this date. Demographic characteristics, preoperative clinical findings, intraoperative characteristics and postoperative short-term follow-up of these two groups of patients belonging to different time periods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>34 patients were treated with classic SC (Group 1) and 32 patients with modified SC (Group 2). The amount of decrease in Hemoglobin values measured at the sixth hour postoperatively compared to the preoperative period was found to be less in group 2 (1.01 ± 0.67 g/dl) than in group 1 (1.39 ± 0.85 g/dl) (p = 0.042). The treatment failure rate was found to be lower in group 2 (p = 0.028). According to the results of multiple logistic regression analysis of significant factors associated with treatment outcome, myometrial thickness measurement and the largest gestational diameter measurement were found to be significant independent factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In CSP cases, SC procedure with abdominal ultrasonography is an effective and reliable approach. At the beginning of this surgical procedure, if the gestational sac is removed from the uterine wall with the curettage cannula before suction, the success of the procedure will increase even more.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526517/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06917-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), the incidence of which is increasing, can lead to life-threatening consequences. In this study, it was aimed to compare the results of two different ultrasound-assisted suction curettage (SC) approaches that we applied to endogenous type CSPs in different time periods.

Methods: Patients who were diagnosed with CSP and treated with SC in the early pregnancy service between January 2012 and March 2019 were included in the study. While classical SC was applied until December 2016, patients were treated with SC modified by us after this date. Demographic characteristics, preoperative clinical findings, intraoperative characteristics and postoperative short-term follow-up of these two groups of patients belonging to different time periods were compared.

Results: 34 patients were treated with classic SC (Group 1) and 32 patients with modified SC (Group 2). The amount of decrease in Hemoglobin values measured at the sixth hour postoperatively compared to the preoperative period was found to be less in group 2 (1.01 ± 0.67 g/dl) than in group 1 (1.39 ± 0.85 g/dl) (p = 0.042). The treatment failure rate was found to be lower in group 2 (p = 0.028). According to the results of multiple logistic regression analysis of significant factors associated with treatment outcome, myometrial thickness measurement and the largest gestational diameter measurement were found to be significant independent factors.

Conclusion: In CSP cases, SC procedure with abdominal ultrasonography is an effective and reliable approach. At the beginning of this surgical procedure, if the gestational sac is removed from the uterine wall with the curettage cannula before suction, the success of the procedure will increase even more.

比较两种不同的抽吸刮宫法在剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗中的应用。
背景:剖宫产瘢痕妊娠(CSP)的发病率越来越高,可导致危及生命的后果。本研究旨在比较我们在不同时期对内源性疤痕妊娠采用的两种不同超声辅助吸刮术(SC)的效果:研究纳入了2012年1月至2019年3月期间在早孕服务中被诊断为CSP并接受SC治疗的患者。在 2016 年 12 月之前使用的是经典的 SC,而在 2016 年 12 月之后,患者接受了由我们改良的 SC 治疗。研究比较了不同时期两组患者的人口统计学特征、术前临床结果、术中特征和术后短期随访情况:结果:34 名患者接受了传统 SC 治疗(第 1 组),32 名患者接受了改良 SC 治疗(第 2 组)。术后第六小时测量的血红蛋白值与术前相比,第二组(1.01 ± 0.67 g/dl)的下降幅度低于第一组(1.39 ± 0.85 g/dl)(p = 0.042)。第 2 组的治疗失败率较低(p = 0.028)。根据与治疗结果相关的重要因素的多元逻辑回归分析结果,发现子宫肌层厚度测量和最大妊娠直径测量是重要的独立因素:结论:在CSP病例中,使用腹部超声波进行SC手术是一种有效而可靠的方法。在手术开始时,如果在吸宫前用刮宫套管将妊娠囊从子宫壁上取出,手术的成功率将进一步提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信