Cesarean scar pregnancy

Česká verze

Authors: J. Hanáček ^1,2 ; Hynek Heřman ^1,2 ; P. Křepelka ^1,2 ; Lubomír Hašlík ^1,2 ; Brandejsová A. ¹; Ladislav Krofta ^1,2
Authors place of work: Ústav pro péči o matku a dítě, 3. LF UK, Praha ¹; 3. LF UK a FNKV, Praha ²
Published in the journal: Ceska Gynekol 2022; 87(3): 193-197
Category: Přehledový článek
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg2022193

Summary

Objective: To summarize the current knowledge on pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Methodology: A literature review on the topic using the PubMed database. Results: Gravidity in a cesarean scar is a relatively new type of ectopic pregnancy that will be an increasingly common problem in an era of increasing cesarean section rates. It is still a relatively rare event, occurring in about 6% of the population. Diagnosis is based primarily on ultrasound examination and is essential early on in pregnancy. The pathogenesis of the disease is due to a disorder of the basal layer of the endometrium and can lead to conditions that we refer to as placenta accreta spectrum. The management is completely individualized and depends on hCG values, ultrasound findings, fetal viability, the wishes of the pregnant woman and the experience of the gynecologist concerned. Conclusion: This is still a rare occurrence of ectopic pregnancy but with increasing potential. The solution is completely individualized based on a precise and early ultrasound diagnosis.

Keywords:

Methotrexate – cesarean scar pregnancy – ultrasound diagnosis – placenta accreta spectrum – vacumaspiration – uterine scar resuture

Zdroje

1. Parker VL, Srinivas M. Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 294(1): 19–27. doi: 10.1007/ s00404-0116-4069-y.

2. Ouyang Y, Li X, Yi Y et al. First-trimester diagnosis and management of Cesarean scar pregnancies after in vitro fertilization –⁠ embryo transfer: a retrospective clinical analysis of 12 cases. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13 : 126. doi: 10.1186/ s12958-015-0120-2.

3. Tantbirojn P, Crum CP, Parast MM. Pathophysiology of placenta creta: the role of decidua and extravillous trophoblast. Placenta 2008; 29(7): 639–645. doi: 10.1016/ j.placenta.2008. 04.008.

4. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteaguo A, Cali G et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy and early placenta accreta share common histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43(4): 383–395. doi: 10.1002/ uog.13282.

5. Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG 2007; 114(3): 253–263. doi: 10.1111/ j.1471-0528.2006.01237.x.

6. Holland MG, Bienstock JL. Recurrent ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(2 Pt 2): 541–545. doi: 10.1097/ 01. AOG.0000287295.39149.bd.

7. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44(3): 346–353. doi:10.1002/ uog. 13426.

8. Ghezzi F, Laganà D, Franchi M et al. Conservative treatment by chemotherapy and uterine arteries embolization of a cesarean scar pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002; 103(1): 88–91. doi: 10.1016/ s0301-2115(02)00003-9.

9. Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B et al. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21(3): 220–227. doi: 10.1002/ uog.56.

10. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207(1): 14–29. doi: 10.1016/ j. ajog.2012.03.007.

11. Ko JK, Li RH, Cheung VY. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a 10-year experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 55(1): 64–69. doi: 10.1111/ ajo.12273.

12. Timor-Tritsch IE, Haynes MC, Monteagudo A et al. Ultrasound diagnosis and management of acquired uterine enhanced myometrial vascularity/ arteriovenous malformations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214(6): 731.e1–731.e10. doi: 10.1016/ j.ajog.2015.12.024.

13. Calì G, Timor-Trisch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J et al. Changes in ultrasonography indicators of abnormally invasive placenta during pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 140(3): 319–325. doi: 10.1002/ ijgo.12413.

14. Calì G, Forlani F, Minneci G et al. First-trimester prediction of surgical outcome in abnormally invasive placenta using the cross-over sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51(2): 184–188. doi: 10.1002/ uog.17440.

15. Zhang Y, Gu Y, Wang JM et al. Analysis of cases with cesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2013; 39(1): 195–202. doi: 10.1111/ j.1447-0756.2012.01782.x.

16. Calì G, Timor-Trisch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J et al. Outcome of Cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51(2): 169–175. doi: 10.1002/ uog.17568.

17. Nagi JB, Ofi li-Yebovi D, Sawyer E et al. Successful treatment of a recurrent Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy by surgical repair of the uterine defect. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28(6): 855–856. doi: 10.1002/ uog.3843.

18. Bennett TA, Morgan J, Timor-Tritsch IE et al. Fifth recurrent Cesarean scar pregnancy: observations of a case and historical perspective. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50(5): 658–660. doi: 10.1002/ uog.17461.

19. Wang Q, Peng HL, He L et al. Reproductive outcomes after previous cesarean scar pregnancy: follow up of 189 women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 54(5): 551–553. doi: 10.1016/ j. tjog.2015.08.006.

20. Ugurlucan FG, Bastu E, Dogan M et al. Management of cesarean heterotopic pregnancy with transvaginal ultrasound-guided potassium chloride injection and gestational sac aspiration, and review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012; 19(5): 671–673. doi: 10.1016/ j.jmig.2012.05.006.

21. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23(3): 247–253. doi: 10.1002/ uog.974.

22. Petersen KB, Hoff mann E, Larsen CR et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. Fertil Steril 2016; 105(4): 958–967. doi: 10.1016/ j.fertnstert.2015.12.130.

23. Cok T, Kalayci H, Ozdemir H et al. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided local methotrexate administration as the first-line treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy: follow-up of 18 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41(5): 803–808. doi: 10.1111/ jog.12627.

24. Shao MJ, Hu M, Hu MX. Conservative management of cesarean scar pregnancy by local injection of ethanol under hysteroscopic guidance. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013; 121(3): 281–282. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijgo.2013.01.012.

25. Vial Y, Petignat P, Hohlfeld P. Pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16(6): 592–593. doi: 10.1046/ j.1469-0705. 2000.00300-2.x.

26. Li Y, Gong L, Wu X et al. Randomized controlled trial of hysteroscopy or ultrasonography versus no guidance during D&C after uterine artery chemoembolization for cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 135(2): 158–162. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijgo.2016.04.019.

27. Yang Q, Piao S, Wang G et al. Hysteroscopic surgery of ectopic pregnancy in the cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009; 16(4): 432–436. doi: 10.1016/ j.jmig.2009.03. 015.