Uterine Artery Embolization Group Research Articles

Comparison of menstruation recovery after ultrasound-guided suction curettage in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy pretreated using high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization

Objectives To investigate the menstruation recovery after two therapeutic regimens, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or uterine artery embolization (UAE) combined with ultrasound-guided suction curettage, for premenopausal women with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Materials and methods Seventy patients with CSP treated with HIFU followed by ultrasound-guided suction curettage and 63 patients with CSP treated with UAE followed by ultrasound-guided suction curettage in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The treatment parameters and the menstrual blood loss (MBL) volume at 6 months after the two therapeutic regimens were compared between the two groups. Results There was no significant difference in treatment results between the two groups. With regard to postoperative MBL volume, 5 out of 70 patients in the HIFU group and 22 out of 63 patients in UAE group exhibited a reduction in MBL, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that hypomenorrhea was more likely to occur in the UAE group than in the HIFU group (UAE group vs. HIFU group; OR 11.328, 95% CI 3.158–55.871; p < 0.001). Conclusion Compared to UAE, HIFU has less influence on postoperative MBL volume, which may be a fertility-sparing option for patients with CSP.

Clinical efficacy analysis of laparoscopic uterine artery pre-ligation combined with hysteroscopic curettage in the treatment of type II cesarean scar pregnancy.

To explore and evaluate the clinical therapeutic effect of laparoscopic uterine artery pre-ligation combined with hysteroscopic curettage in the treatment of type II cesarean scar pregnancy. This study analyzed the clinical data of patients with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei Province from 2018 to 2022. A total of 134 patients with type II cesarean section were enrolled, out of which 78 patients were included in the final analysis. Treatment included either uterine artery embolization (UAE) combined with hysteroscopic curettage (n = 37 patients) or laparoscopic uterine artery pre-ligation (LUAP) combined with hysteroscopic curettage (n = 41 patients). The demographic and clinical characteristics of these two groups were recorded, and their short- and long-term complications on follow-up were compared. For patients with subsequent fertility requirements, we followed up these patients for 2 years after surgery, then collected and analyzed the compared subsequent pregnancy outcome. We found no significant discrepancies in the success rate of operation, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative blood loss between the two different operation modes. The cost of LUAP was significantly lower than that of UAE. Furthermore, the incidence of short-term postoperative complications such as fever and pelvic pain was lower in patients treated with LUAP than in those treated with UAE. In terms of long-term postoperative complications, the recovery time for menstruation in the LUAP group (49.81 ± 11.47) was earlier than that in the UAE group (34.90 ± 7.41) (p < 0.05). Additionally, 4.9% of patients in the LUAP group had decreased menstrual flow, while 59% of patients in the UAE group had a marked decrease in menstrual flow, and the incidence and severity of intrauterine adhesions were significantly lower in the LUAP group than in the UAE group(p < 0.05). Consistent with the aforementioned observations, patients treated with LUAP had better postoperative re-pregnancy outcomes than those treated with UAE. Based on the findings, LUAP combined with hysteroscopic curettage is a safe and effective surgical scheme for the treatment of type II CSPs. In addition, compared with UAE, LUAP is associated with a lower surgical cost, fewer short and long-term complications, and better postoperative pregnancy outcomes. Thus, it should be widely applied in patients with type II CSPs.

Long-Term Effect on Ovarian Function After Uterine Artery Embolization During the Postpartum Period: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.

Uterine artery embolization(UAE) is widely used in obstetrical indications, including postpartum bleeding and placental implantation abnormality, to manage many conditions to conserve the uterus. However, physicians are concerned about future fertility or ovarian function due to the occlusion of major pelvic vessels in the uterine artery embolization. However, there are limited data related to UAE usage during the postpartum period. This study was to evaluate the impact of UAE during the postpartum period on primary ovarian failure(POF), menstrual disorders, and infertility in women. Using the Korea National Health Insurance claims database, all pregnant women who delivered between January 2007 and December 2015 and underwent UAE during the postpartum period were identified. The occurrence of POF, female infertility, and menstrual disorders after delivery was evaluated. Using Cox proportional hazards models, the adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. 779,612 cases were analyzed in the study with 947 women in the UAE group. After delivery, the incidence of POF (0.84% vs.0.27%, P<.0001) and female infertility (10.24% vs. 6.89%, P<.0001) were higher in UAE group than in the control group. After adjusting for covariates, the POF risk was significantly higher in UAE group than in the control group (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.16-4.82). The risk for the disorder of menstrual frequency (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and female infertility (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10-1.71) was significantly higher in UAE group than in the control group. This study confirmed UAE during the postpartum period is a risk factor for POF after delivery.

Comparison of clinical safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection versus uterine artery embolization in the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to introduce the relatively novel method of ultrasound-guided local lauromacrogol injection (USG-LLI) followed by dilatation and curettage for caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to investigate the clinical safety and efficacy between uterine artery embolization (UAE) and USG-LLI in the treatment of CSP.MethodsThe relevant literature and articles about USG-LLI, UAE and CSP published in eight electronic databases were searched to extract the primary outcomes for the selected articles. Review Manager Software(RevMan) V.5.2 was used for quantitative data synthesis and data analysis. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis were also performed on the included articles.ResultsOf 10 studies included in our search, 623 patients were in the USG-LLI group and 627 patients were in the UAE groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of success rate, blood loss and time to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) normalization. However, USG-LLI group patients than UAE group patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.97; 95% confidence intervals [CI] -2.63 to -1.31; P < 0.05; I2 = 95%), shorter restored menses (MD = -4.84; 95%CI -5.78 to -3.90; P < 0.05; I2 = 95%), and lower complication rates [odds ratio(OR) = 0.21; 95%CI:0.15 to 0.30; P < 0.05]; and cheaper on expenses of hospitalization (MD = -8028.29; 95%CI -10,311.18 to -5745.40; P < 0.05; I2 = 100%).ConclusionsThe results demonstrate that USG-LLI is comparable in curative effect and success rates with UAE in the therapy of CSP, but patients in the USG-LLI group seem to have fewer complications rates, shorter duration of hospital stays and lower costs.

Reproductive and Obstetric Outcomes after UAE, HIFU, and TFA of Uterine Fibroids: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Novel treatment options for uterine fibroids, such as uterine artery embolization (UAE), ultrasound-guided and magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (USgHIFU and MRgHIFU), and transcervical radiofrequency ablation (TFA) methods, are widely used in clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42022297312) aims to assess and compare reproductive and obstetric outcomes in women who underwent these minimally invasive approaches for uterine fibroids. The search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Cochrane guidelines. The articles were selected to meet the following eligibility criteria: (1) research article, (2) human subject research, and (3) the study of pregnancy outcomes after the treatment of uterine fibroids by either one of three methods-UAE, HIFU, and TFA. The analysis of 25 eligible original articles shows a similar rate of live births for UAE, USgHIFU, MRgHIFU, and TFA (70.8%, 73.5%, 70%, and 75%, respectively). The number of pregnancies varied considerably among these studies, as well as the mean age of pregnant women. However, the results of pregnancy outcomes for TFA are insufficient to draw firm conclusions, since only 24 women became pregnant in these studies, resulting in three live births. The miscarriage rate was highest in the UAE group (19.2%). USgHIFU was associated with a higher rate of placental abnormalities compared to UAE (2.8% vs. 1.6%). The pooled estimate of pregnancies was 17.31% to 44.52% after UAE, 18.69% to 78.53% after HIFU, and 2.09% to 7.63% after TFA. The available evidence confirmed that these minimally invasive uterine-sparing treatment options for uterine fibroids are a good approach for patients wishing to preserve their fertility, with comparable reproductive and obstetric outcomes among the different techniques.

Effects of lauromacrogol injection under contrast-enhanced ultrasound guidance on cesarean scar pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.

Compared with the current commonly used pretreatment approaches, the therapeutic effect of contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided sclerotherapy with lauromacrogol injection (CEUSL) on cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is not clear. This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of CEUSL compared with gelatin sponge uterine artery embolization (UAE) and UAE combined with methotrexate (UAEM) in the pretreatment of CSP to prevent massive bleeding during subsequent curettage. Sixty-four patients were divided into the CEUSL (n=20), UAE (n=22), and UAEM (n=22) groups. All patients with CSP underwent curettage and hysteroscopy after CEUSL, UAE, or UAEM pretreatment. The efficacy and safety indicators after pretreatment were analyzed. Time for pretreatment [95% confidence interval (CI): 31.92-39.28] and hospitalization cost (95% CI: 7,852.32-9,063.23) were significantly decreased in the CEUSL group compared with that in the UAE (95% CI: 53.55-59.99% and 95% CI: 12,901.42-15,166.63, respectively) and the UAEM group (95% CI: 52.90-58.83 and 95% CI: 11,324.66-13,302.69, respectively; P<0.001). The beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) percentage decrease 24 hours later and the hospital stay were significantly decreased in the CEUSL group (95% CI: 0.65-0.70 and 95% CI: 3.32-4.58 days, respectively) compared with those in the UAE (95% CI: 0.67-0.74 and 95% CI: 4.06-5.84, respectively) or UAEM (95% CI: 0.62-0.68 and 95% CI: 4.12-5.88, respectively) groups (P<0.05). After pretreatment, there were significantly fewer patients (P<0.05) with fever (95% CI: -0.52 to -0.093), pelvic pain (95% CI: -0.427 to -0.018), increased white blood cell count (95% CI: -0.359 to 0.040), and hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) elevation (95% CI: -0.572 to -0.118) in the CEUSL group than in the UAE or UAEM groups. At follow-up, all patients resumed normal menstruation, with no residual gestational sac on ultrasound imaging or sequel. The pretreatment procedures were all technically successful, with good outcomes in different pretreatment procedures. Compared with UAE with or without methotrexate, CEUSL may be as effective and safe for pretreatment of CSP, with fewer adverse effects and shorter pretreatment time and hospital stay.

Clinical efficacy and re-pregnancy outcomes of patients with previous cesarean scar pregnancy treated with either high-intensity focused ultrasound or uterine artery embolization before ultrasound-guided dilatation and curettage: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundCesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) treated with either high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU-a) or uterine artery embolization (UAE) combined with ultrasound-guided dilation and curettage (USg-D&C) was effective. However, there is insufficient comparative research evidence on clinical efficacy and subsequent pregnancy outcomes after previous CSP treatment. This study aims to investigate the efficacy, safety, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes of HIFU-a compared to UAE before USg-D&C for the treatment of CSP.MethodsBetween January 2016 and July 2020, a total of 272 patients received the pretreatment with HIFU-a or UAE(HIFU-a group: n = 118; UAE group: n = 154). The clinical characteristics, treatment success rate, postoperative pregnancy rate and outcome of the two groups were compared and analyzed.ResultsThe demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. After pretreatment, the adverse events rate of HIFU-a group was lower than that of UAE group (10.40% (16/154) vs. 40.70% (48/118), P = 0.00). All patients received the USg-D&C. The HIFU-a group was of less intraoperative blood loss (10.00 (5.00–20.00) vs. 12.50 (5.00–30.00) ml, P = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in success rates. However, the HIFU-a group was of a shorter duration of postoperative vaginal bleeding (12.00 (9.00–13.00) vs. 14.00 (12.00–15.00) days, P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of subsequent pregnancy rates (P = 0.317). However, the recurrent CSP (rCSP) rate in the HIFU-a group was lower than that in the UAE group (7.70% (6/78) vs. 19.70%(13/66), P = 0.03).ConclusionsCSP treated with either HIFU-a or UAE combined with USg-D&C was safe and effective. Although no significant difference was found in the subsequent pregnancy outcomes of the two groups, the rCSP was more common in the UAE group. So, we recommend HIFU-a combined with USg-D&C treatment modality.

Pituitrin Injection before Hysteroscopic Curettage for Treating Type I Cesarean Scar Pregnancy in Comparison with Uterine Artery Embolization: A Retrospective Study.

The effectiveness and safety of pituitrin injection coupled with hysteroscopy and suction curettage as treatment for type I cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) have not been studied enough in the literature, by comparing it to uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by suction curettage we aim to determine its efficacy. Data of 53 patients (the PIT group) with type I CSP treated with pituitrin injection combined with hysteroscopic suction curettage and 137 patients (the UAE group) with type I CSP treated with UAE followed by suction curettage were collected in retrospect. The clinical data were analyzed statistically to compare the efficacy and safety between the two groups. The PIT group had a shorter duration of postoperative vaginal bleeding, postoperative hospitalization, and overall hospitalization length (P < 0.05). The PIT group had lower overall hospitalization costs and a lower rate of adverse events than the UAE group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of treatment success rate, the average length of operation, blood loss during the procedure, time when serum β-hCG returned to normal range, and menstrual recovery time after hospital release (P > 0.05). UAE and pituitrin injection followed by hysteroscopic suction curettage are good choices for type I CSP treatment. However, pituitrin injection with hysteroscopic suction curettage outperforms UAE followed by suction curettage. Thus, pituitrin injection may be an option of high priority for type I CSP.

Comparison of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation and uterine artery embolization in the management of cervical pregnancy.

BackgroundCervical pregnancy (CP) is an uncommon type of ectopic pregnancy with a rising risk to life. Currently, there is no universal protocol for the safe and effective management of CP. This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation (HIFU) vs. uterine artery embolization (UAE) in the management of CP to develop a standard for the treatment of CP.MethodsFrom January 2015 to October 2021, 36 patients with CP were diagnosed, treated, and followed up at the Department of Gynecology of Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. A total of 11 patients were treated with HIFU followed by suction curettage under hysteroscopic guidance, and 25 patients were treated with UAE followed by suction curettage under hysteroscopic guidance. Medical records and pregnancy outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsCompared to the UAE group, the HIFU group had a shorter interval time (1.5 ± 0.21 days vs. 2.6 ± 0.26 days), shorter duration of hospitalization (5.5 ± 0.31 days vs. 6.6 ± 0.21 days), shorter recovery time of menstruation (30.6 ± 7.09 days vs. 36.9 ± 5.54 days), fewer adverse reactions (0/11 vs. 9/25), and fewer postoperative complications (1/11 vs. 8/25). There were no significant differences in age, gravidity, parity, abortion, gestational age, cardiac pulsation, admission symptoms, hemoglobin level, largest diameter of the sac/mass, serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level at admission, hospitalization expenses, hospitalization days, blood loss during curettage, degree of hCG decline, residue after curettage, fertility requirement, and pregnancy outcomes.ConclusionBoth HIFU and UAE are safe and effective in the treatment of patients with CP. Compared to UAE, HIFU treatment for CP is a safer and more effective therapeutic schedule owing to the advantages of being more minimally invasive, shorter interval time, shorter hospitalization days and recovery time of menstruation, fewer adverse reactions, and fewer postoperative complications.

The efficacy of different treatments for type 2 cesarean scar pregnancy

To study the efficacy of 3 treatment options for type 2 cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and establish an optimal treatment strategy for type 2 CSP. Retrospective cohort study. A tertiary hospital. The study examined 160 women with type 2 CSP. Ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration after local injection of lauromacrogol, ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration after uterine artery embolization (UAE), and transabdominal resection or hysteroscopy combined with laparoscopic resection. The success rates, duration of hospitalization, hospitalization cost, amount of blood loss, recovery time, and menstruation resuming after recovery. The success rates of the UAE, lauromacrogol, and surgical groups were 87.1%, 92.5%, and 95.5%, respectively, with no significant differences. The cost and duration of hospitalization in the lauromacrogol group were significantly lower than those in the UAE and surgical groups. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure revealed a significant difference in the gestational age. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.660 (95% confidence interval, 0.533-0.788). When the gestational age was 48.5 days, Youden index was the highest. Furthermore, when the diagnostic thresholds were selected as 49, 56, and 63 days of pregnancy, the corresponding areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.652, 0.541, and 0.510, respectively. Ultrasound-guided vacuum aspiration after local injection of lauromacrogol is recommended for patients with type 2 CSP at <49 days of gestation. Laparotomy or laparoscopy combined with hysteroscopy is suitable for patients with gestation of >49 days, especially for those with >56 days of gestation.

Effect of Uterine Artery Ligation and Uterine Artery Embolization on Postpartum Hemorrhage Due to Uterine Asthenia after Cesarean Section and Its Effect on Blood Flow and Function of Uterine and Ovarian Arteries.

Objective To investigate the efficacy of uterine artery ligation (UAL) and uterine artery embolization (UAE) in the treatment of uterine asthenia postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) after cesarean section and its effect on uterine and ovarian artery blood flow and function. Methods 100 patients with uterine asthenia PPH after cesarean section in our hospital from January 2018 to November 2020 were randomly divided into 50 cases in the UAL group and 50 cases in the UAE group. They were followed up for 12 months. The bleeding volume, operation time, immediate hemostasis rate, and hemostasis effective rate; lochia clearance time and menstrual rehydration time; RI and S/D; and serum FSH, E2, and LH levels were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with the UAL group, the amount of bleeding in the UAE group was significantly increased and the operation time was significantly shortened (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the immediate hemostatic rate and hemostatic effective rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in lochia clearance time and menstrual rehydration time between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in RI and S/D between the two groups (p > 0.05). Compared with before the operation, the levels of FSH and LH in the two groups decreased significantly, and the level of E2 increased significantly (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion The efficacy of UAL and UAE in the treatment of PPH with uterine asthenia after cesarean section and its effect on the blood flow and function of uterine and ovarian arteries are equivalent, but the amount of bleeding in UAL is less and the operation time of UAE is shorter. The appropriate operation method can be selected according to the actual situation.

Ultrasound guided microwave ablation compared to uterine artery embolization treatment for uterine fibroids – a randomized controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of microwave ablation (MWA) compared to uterine artery embolization (UAE) as treatment for uterine fibroids. Method A randomized controlled superiority trial, including premenopausal women 30–55 years, with symptomatic uterine fibroids without any single fibroid exceeding mean diameter of eight centimeters. Patients were randomized to receive microwave ablation, performed abdominally or vaginally, or to uterine artery embolization. The primary outcome was volume difference of the three largest fibroids at 6 months post treatment evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by a blinded radiologist analyzed by Mann–Whitney U-test. Secondary outcomes included symptom severity score (SSS), health related quality of life (HR-QoL), amount of menstrual bleeding, postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, need for additional treatment, adverse events and if patients would recommend the treatment to a friend. Results Patients were recruited from 30 January 2017 to 12 September 2019, with a total of 17 patients treated in each group from May 2017 to December 2019. Superiority of MWA could not be established. The volume reduction was 41.8% (Interquartile range, IQR, 14–63) in the MWA group compared to 62.2% (IQR 34.9–80.1) in the UAE group (p = 0.29). Effects on symptoms, HR-QoL and acceptability did not differ between groups. Days of hospitalization and sick leave were significantly fewer in the MWA group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001). Conclusions Although superiority of MWA could not be established, it is a promising technique for treating uterine fibroids. It was well tolerated and associated with lower use of health care resources. Trial registration: NCT02942537, www.clincialtrials.gov

The effect of prophylactic uterine artery embolization on reproductive outcomes in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy: a propensity score-matched study.

This study aimed to investigate the effect of prophylactic uterine artery embolization (UAE) on reproductive outcomes in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). A retrospective case-control study was conducted using the hospital records of all women diagnosed with CSP during a period of 6years, between January 2014 and December 2019, at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. The clinical characteristics and different treatment modalities were analyzed. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 181 patients with reproductive needs were selected and divided into a UAE group (n = 51) and a non-UAE group (n = 130) according to whether they received preventive UAE before their hysteroscopic or laparoscopic operation. The basic characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of patients in each group were compared, and a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to produce 37 matched pairs. Before PSM, the UAE group had a thinner muscle layer, larger mass size, and higher serum human chorionic gonadotropin level than the non-UAE group. The pregnancy rate and live birth rate of the UAE group were 54.9% and 61.9%, respectively, which were lower than those of the non-UAE group (61.5% and 66.7%), but no statistical differences were observed. Post-PSM, no significant differences between basic characteristics of the groups were observed. The pregnancy rate of the UAE group was 51.4%, which was lower than that of the non-UAE group (73.0%); the live birth rate of the UAE group was 64.3%, which was also lower than that of the non-UAE group (72.7%); however, the differences were not statistically significant with the P value of 0.077 and 0.716. Prophylactic UAE did not induce a significant difference in pregnancy rate and live birth rate between the UAE group and the non-UAE group.

The novel use of lauromacrogol: A respective study of ultrasound‐guided sclerosant injection for cesarean scar pregnancy

To introduce the novel use of lauromacrogol for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), and to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of curettage combined with ultrasound-guided sclerosant injection (USI) and curettage following uterine artery embolization (UAE) in the treatment of CSP. CSP patients undergoing curettage combined with USI (n=72) from December 2014 to May 2020 were compared to patient with curettage following UAE (n=72).The basic clinical findings and clinical outcomes were reviewed between the two groups. For USI group, 69 patients underwent successful treatment (95.8% success rate), while the number of cured patients for the UAE group was 70 (97.2% success rate). Differences between USI group and UAE group in intraoperative blood loss (10.0 [10.0-20.0] vs. 10.0 [10.0-20.0] mL) and time for serum β human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) to reduce to normal (28.0 [21.0-40.0] vs. 28.0 [21.0-35.0] days) were not statistically significant. The hospital stay for USI group was significantly shorter than that for UAE group (4.0 [4.0-6.0] vs. 6.0 [5.0-7.0] days, respectively). Statistically significant decreases were noted in hospitalization expenses and adverse events in USI group, compared to UAE group. There was no difference in live birth rate between the two groups with fertility intentions during the follow-up. For treatment of CSP, curettage combined with USI yielded clinical results comparable to those of curettage following UAE. Curettage combined with USI was associated with lower hospitalization expenses, shorter hospital stay and less complications, and it merited an effective and safe treatment for CSP.

Evaluation of the diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy induced in the second trimester: a national multicenter retrospective study

Objective: To study the risk factors of adverse pregnancy outcomes for induced abortion of cesarean scar pregnancy in midtrimester. Methods: A national multicenter retrospective study was conducted. A total of 154 singletons pregnant women with cesarean scar pregnancy during the second trimester induced abortion by various reasons in 12 tertiary A hospitals were selected, their pregnant outcomes were observed and the risk factors of serious adverse outcomes were analyzed with univariate and multivariate logstic regression; the role of ultrasound and MRI in predicting placenta accreta and severe adverse outcomes was evaluated, the effectiveness of uterine artery embolization (UAE) in preventing hemorrhage in pregnant women with and without placenta accreta was compared. Results: Among 154 subjects, the rate of placenta accreta was 42.2% (65/154), the rate of postpartum hemorrhage≥1 000 ml was 39.0% (60/154), the rate of hysterectomy was 14.9% (23/154), the rate of uterine rupture was 0.6% (1/154). The risk factor of postpartum hemorrhage≥1 000 ml and hysterectomy was placenta accreta (P<0.01). For each increase in the number of parity, the risk of placenta accreta increased 2.385 times (95%CI: 1.046-5.439; P=0.039); and the risk of placenta accreta decreased with increasing ultrasound measurement of scar myometrium thickness (OR=0.033, 95%CI: 0.001-0.762; P=0.033). The amount of postpartum hemorrhage and hysterectomy rate in the group with placenta accreta diagnosed by ultrasound combined with MRI were not significantly different from those in the group with placenta accreta diagnosed by ultrasound only or MRI only (all P>0.05). For pregnant women with placenta accreta, there were no significant difference in the amount of bleeding and hysterectomy rate between the UAE group [median: 1 300 ml; 34% (16/47)] and the non-embolization group (all P>0.05); in pregnant women without placenta accreta, the amount of bleeding in the UAE group was lower than that in the non-embolization group (median: 100 vs 600 ml; P<0.01), but there was no significant difference in hysterectomy rate [2% (1/56) vs 9% (3/33); P>0.05]. Conclusions: (1) Placenta accreta is the only risk factor of postpartum hemorrhage≥1 000 ml with hysterectomy for induced abortion of cesarean scar pregnancy in midtrimester; multi-parity and ultrasound measurement of scar myometrium thickness are risk factors for placenta accreta. (2) The technique of using ultrasound and MRI in predicting placenta accreta of cesarean scar pregnancy needs to be improved. (3) It is necessary to discuss of UAE in preventing postpartum hemorrhage for induced abortion of cesarean scar pregnancy in midtrimester.

Prophylactic Intraoperative Uterine Artery Embolization During Cesarean Section or Cesarean Hysterectomy in Patients with Abnormal Placentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic intraoperative uterine artery embolization (UAE) performed immediately after fetal delivery during planned cesarean section or cesarean hysterectomy in patients with placenta accreta spectrum disorder or placenta previa. A systematic search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Studies were selected using the Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcomes (PICO) strategy. The intraoperative blood loss and the rate of emergent peripartum hysterectomy (EPH) were the primary outcomes, whereas the length of hospital stay and volume of blood transfused were the secondary outcomes. A random-effects model was employed to pool each effect size. The cumulative values of the primary outcomes were calculated using the generic inverse variance method. Eleven retrospective cohort studies and five case series were included, recruiting 421 women who underwent prophylactic intraoperative UAE (UAE group) and 374 women who did not (control group). Compared with the control group, the UAE group had significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (p=0.020) during cesarean section or cesarean hysterectomy. Furthermore, the EPH rate was also significantly decreased (p=0.020; cumulative rate: 19.65%), but not the length of hospital stay (p=0.850) and volume of pRBC transfused (p=0.140), after cesarean section in the UAE group. The incidence of major complications was low (3.33%), despite two patients with uterine necrosis. The currently available data provides encouraging evidence that prophylactic intraoperative UAE may contribute to hemorrhage control and fertility preservation in women with abnormal placentation. PROSPERO registration code: CRD42021230581. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/CRD42021230581 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2a, systematic review of retrospective cohort studies.

A Comparison of Transvaginal Removal and Repair of Uterine Defect for Type II Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Uterine Artery Embolization Combined With Curettage.

Background: There is no consensus on a standardized therapy for type II cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP II). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety and compare costs associated with transvaginal removal and repair (TRR) of uterine defect for CSP II to those of uterine artery embolization (UAE) and curettage.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that included 87 patients diagnosed with CSP II and treated by performing UAE in combination with curettage and hysteroscopy (n = 53), or TRR (n = 34). Clinical data and outcomes were analyzed.Results: UAE and TRR groups exhibited similar success rates. The TRR group had significantly lower complication rates (30.19 vs. 8.82%, P < 0.05) and lower total costs (13,765.89 ± 2,029.12 vs. 9,063.82 ± 954.67, P < 0.05) than the UAE group. The anterior myometrium of the lower uterine segment was relatively thicker after performing TRR, and no patient suffered from recurrent CSP II. The proportion of patients in the TRR group who had full-term delivery without uterine rupture was 88.24% (30/34), while four patients failed to pregnancy.Conclusion: TRR is a safe and effective treatment method for patients with CSP II and presents a highly cost-effective outcome, especially for patients with future fertility desire.

Clinical efficacy and safety between high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization for cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

It was reported that high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) can locally inactivate pregnancy tissue. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) can achieve good results for CSP too. To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of HIFU and UAE in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), we conducted this research. Multiple databases were used to search for relevant studies and articles related to HIFU, UAE, and CSP. The selected literature were retrospectively evaluated using Review Manager 5.2. In addition, forest plots, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis were conducted for the included literature. Finally, 8 related studies met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in postoperative adverse reactions and hospitalization time between the HIFU group and the UAE group. However, the normalization time of serum beta human chorionic gonadotropin (B-HCG) in the HIFU group was higher than that in the UAE group [MD =1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09, 2.22, P=0.03, I2=93%], and the hospitalization cost in the HIFU group was significantly lower than that in the UAE group (MD =-8.81, 95% CI, -12.64, -4.97, P<0.00001, I2=99%). Our results show that HIFU and UAE have the same curative effect in the treatment of CSP, but HIFU has lower cost and fewer complications. These results supported that compared with UAE, HIFU is a better choice for CSP patients with long gestational age, large gestational sac diameter and high HCG level.

Pituitrin local injection versus uterine artery embolization in the management of cesarean scar pregnancy: A retrospective cohort study.

To compare the effect of pituitrin local injection (PIT) and uterine artery embolization (UAE) as pretreatment before surgery during the management of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Forty-nine CSP patients diagnosed in our department of Suzhou Ninth People's Hospital from October 2017 to October 2019. All patients underwent hysteroscopy and negative pressure aspiration (for type I CSP) or laparoscopic wedge-resection (for type II and III CSP) following one of the preoperative treatments: PIT group (n = 26) and UAE group (n = 23). The baseline clinical data, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization expenses, postoperative pain, postoperative fever, postoperative serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) level, and pregnancy outcome were reviewed and analyzed. There was no significant difference (p ≥ 0.05) between two groups in baseline characteristics including age, gravidity, previous cesarean section times, interval since last cesarean delivery, menolipsis time, maximum diameter of gestational sac or mass under ultrasound, fetal cardiac activity and preoperative β-hCG level. There was no significant difference in blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative β-hCG reduction percentage (p ≥ 0.05) either. The postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization expenses, postoperative pain, and postoperative fever rate in PIT group were significantly lower than those in UAE group (p < 0.05). Moreover, β-hCG level of all patients turned negative 1 month after surgery successfully. PIT pretreatment seems to be a same effective, more economical, and with fewer side effects pretreatment method compared to traditional UAE pretreatment in the management of CSP.

Comparison of uterine artery embolization and myomectomy: A long-term analysis of 863 patients

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the rates of secondary intervention following uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus myomectomy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Material and Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Eight hundred and sixty-three patients are included in this analysis, 451 patients who underwent UAE and 412 patients who underwent myomectomy between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012. The UAE group was significantly older than the myomectomy group with a median age of 46 versus 38 (P &lt; 0.0001). Patient data were collected from electronic medical records between the time of their initial procedure and December 31, 2017. The primary endpoint was secondary intervention rate. Secondary endpoints included time to secondary intervention, post-procedural complications, differences in mean hemoglobin levels following the procedures, symptomatic improvement, and subsequent pregnancy outcomes. All statistical analyses were two sided and performed using SAS EG 7.13 (Cary, NC). Results: The median follow-up for the UAE and myomectomy groups was 7 and 7.3 years, respectively. Overall, the rates of secondary intervention were not statistically significant between the UAE and myomectomy groups, 8.9% and 11.2%, respectively (P = 0.26). However, stratified analysis in women aged 30–39 years old demonstrated an increased rate of secondary intervention in the UAE arm with a hazards ratio of 3.76 (P = 0.0099). In patients ≥40 years old, there was no significant difference in secondary intervention rate. Both groups demonstrated a significant increase in mean hemoglobin at 1 year following initial procedure with a mean difference (SD) of 1.8 (2.1) in the UAE group and 1.8 (2.5) in the myomectomy group (P &lt; 0.0001 for both groups). The myomectomy group had a higher rate of post-procedural blood transfusion than the UAE group, 2.9% versus 0.9%, respectively (P = 0.028). Both groups had comparable rates of post-procedural pelvic infection and rehospitalization. Patients with pre-procedural menorrhagia who received UAE reported a higher rate of symptomatic improvement when compared to the myomectomy group, 75.4% versus 49.5% (P &lt; 0.0001). Both groups reported similar rates of improvement in bulk symptoms, 46.1% and 43.2%, respectively (P = 1.0). Conclusion: Overall, UAE and myomectomy have comparable rates of secondary intervention during a median 7-year follow-up period. However, in women between 30 and 39 years of age, UAE resulted in higher rates of secondary intervention. UAE may be more effective in controlling patients’ menorrhagia and has lower rates of post-procedural blood transfusions.