This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Objectives:To analyze the correlation between ultrasound typing and treatment modality of patients with an intrauterine ectopic pregnancy (cervical and cesarean scar).
Material and methods:We retrospectively enrolled 65 patients diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) or cervical pregnancy (CP) between February 2014 and May 2018. The cases were divided into two types according to the ultrasound presentation with a gestational sac (GS, type I) or a heterogeneous mass (HM, type II). Type I was further divided into type Ia (< 8 weeks) and type Ib (≥ 8 weeks); type II was defined as type IIa (with poor or no vascularity) and type IIb (with rich vascularity). Three treatment methods were applied in each group.Results: Of included cases, there were 53 CSP and 12 CP. There was no significant difference between Type I and Type II groups in any variable. The beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) level and gestational age of type IIb were significantly higher compared to type IIa (p < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between ultrasound categories and treatment methods (rs = 0.723, p = 0.000). Analysis of CSP cases of initial treatment failure indicated success rate of initial dilation and curettage (D&C) was dependent upon ultrasonic types, mean sac diameter, gestational age, hCG level, and number of cesarean sections.
Conclusions:The features of ultrasound imaging might provide an additional reference for the selection of clinical treatment methods.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.