[1]胡乔飞,李长东*,陈素文,等.不同方式治疗225例II型剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的临床病例分析[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2020,(8):19-23.
　HU Qiaofei,LI Changdong*,CHEN Suwen,et al.Clinical analysis of 225 cases of type II cesarean scar pregnancy treated by different methods[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2020,(8):19-23.
点击复制

不同方式治疗225例II型剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的临床病例分析
分享到：

《中国计划生育和妇产科》[ISSN:1674-4020/CN:51-1708/R]

卷:
期数:
2020年8期
页码:
19-23
栏目:
论著与临床
出版日期:
2020-08-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Clinical analysis of 225 cases of type II cesarean scar pregnancy treated by different methods
作者:
胡乔飞1; 李长东1*; 陈素文1; 罗岚蓉1; 张晓峰2; 李坚1
首都医科大学附属北京妇产医院,1.生殖调节科；2.放射科
Author(s):
HU Qiaofei1; LI Changdong1*; CHEN Suwen1; LUO Lanrong1; ZHANG Xiaofeng2; LI Jian1
1.Department of Reproductive Regulation;2.Department of Radiology,Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital,Capital Medical University, Beijing 100006,P.R.China
关键词:
剖宫产瘢痕妊娠; 宫腔镜手术; 治疗方式
Keywords:
cesarean scar pregnancy; hysteroscopic surgery; treatment
分类号:
R 7138
摘要:
目的探讨不同方式治疗II型剖宫产瘢痕妊娠（cesarean scar pregnancy,CSP）的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2016年1月至2017年12月在北京妇产医院生殖调节科手术治疗的225例II型CSP的临床资料，其中114例行宫腔镜手术（非介入球囊组），72例行宫腔镜手术联合子宫动脉栓塞术（uterine artery embolization,UAE）（介入组），39例行宫腔镜手术联合宫腔球囊压迫（球囊组），分析不同治疗方式的临床疗效。结果① 3组在年龄、孕次、剖宫产次数、流产次数、距离前次剖宫产时间、孕囊处最薄肌层厚度及是否保胎方面比较，差异无统计学意义（P>005）；但介入组在停经天数、孕囊大小、术前血人绒毛膜促性腺激素（human chorionic gonadotropin,hCG）值、宫腔积血率及活胎率方面高于非介入球囊组（P<005），术前血hCG值及孕囊大小在3组间差异有统计学意义（P<005）。② 介入组手术时间短且术后血hCG下降快，但术后血hCG恢复正常时间、月经恢复时间及住院时间长，差异均有统计学意义（P<005）。结论II型CSP患者行宫腔镜手术，部分联合宫腔球囊压迫或UAE治疗疗效确切。大部分未予UAE治疗的II型CSP患者术后恢复快。对有多个高危因素如停经天数长、孕囊较大、术前血hCG值高、活胎且有宫腔积血的II型CSP患者优先考虑UAE。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo discuss the clinical treatment effect of type II cesarean scar pregnancy treated by different methods.MethodsThe clinical data of 225 cases of type II cesarean scar pregnancy which were treated by surgery in the department of reproductive regulation of Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 114 cases were treated with hysteroscopy (noninterventional group),72 cases were treated with hysteroscopy and uterine artery embolization(UAE group), and 39 cases were treated with hysteroscopy and uterine balloon compression,analyzed the clinital efficacy of different treatment methods (intrauterine balloon group).Results① There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in age, number of pregnancies, number of cesarean section, number of miscarriages, time from previous cesarean section, thickness of the thinnest muscle layer at the gestational sac (P>005).The number of menopause days, gestational sac size, preoperative blood human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) value, intrauterine hemorrhage rate and live birth rate were significantly higher in the UAE group than in the noninterventional group (P<005).There were statistically significant differences in preoperative blood hCG value and the size of the gestational sac among the three groups (P<005).② The UAE group had short operation time,and rapid blood hCG decline,but the time of blood hCG decline to normal, menstrual recovery time and hospitalization time were longer,the differences were statistically significant (P<005).ConclusionThe clinical effect of type II CSP patients underwent hysteroscopic surgery, some combined with intrauterine balloon compression or UAE is definite. Most patients with type II CSP who have not been treated with UAE recovered quickly. UAE is a priority for patients with type II CSP who have multiple highrisk factors, such as long menopause days, large gestational sacs, high hCG values before surgery, live births, and intrauterine hemorrhage.

参考文献/References:

［1］Kim S Y, Yoon S R, Kim M J, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy; Diagnosis and management between 2003 and 2015 in a single center ［J］. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 57(5): 688691. ［2］Jayaram P, Okunoye G, Al Ibrahim A A, et al. Expectant management of caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review ［J］. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 2018, 46(4): 365372. ［3］Rotas M A, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management ［J］. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2006, 107(6): 13731381. ［4］Cali G, TimorTritsch I E, PalaciosJaraquemada J, et al. Outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and metaanalysis ［J］. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2018, 51(2): 169175. ［5］Glenn T L, Bembry J, Findley A D, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: current management strategies ［J］. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 2018, 73(5): 293302. ［6］MahuxLacroix S, Li F, Bujold E A, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options ［J］. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2017, 24(6): 915925. ［7］Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review ［J］. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2017, 24(5): 731738. ［8］Brancazio S, Saramago I, Goodnight W, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy:Case report ［J］. Radiol Case Rep, 2019, 14(3): 354359. ［9］TimorTritsch I E , Monteagudo A . Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review ［J］. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2012, 207(1):1429. ［10］Harb H M, Knight M, Bottomley C, et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK:A national cohort study ［J］. BJOG : an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2018, 125(13): 16631670. ［11］Qi F, Chai Zy, Liu Mm, et al. Type 2 cesarean scar pregnancy successfully treated via hysteroscopyassisted laparoscopy ［J］. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2019, 26(7): 12731281. ［12］Qiu J, Fu Y , Xu J , et al. Analysis on clinical effects of dilation and curettage guided by ultrasonography versus hysteroscopy after uterine artery embolization in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy ［J］. Therapeutics & Clinical Risk Management, 2019,15:8389. ［13］He Y,Wu X,Zhu Q,et al.Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs.uterine curettage in the uterine artery embolizationbased management of cesarean scar pregnancy:a retrospective cohort study ［J］.BMC Womens Health,2014,14:116. ［14］Mclucas B, Voorhees W R, Snyder S A. AntiMullerian hormone levels before and after uterine artery embolization ［J］. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies: MITAT : Official Journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy, 2018, 27(3): 186190. ［15］Kaump G R, Spies J B. The impact of uterine artery embolization on ovarian function ［J］. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology : JVIR, 2013, 24(4): 459467. ［16］Wang Q, Ma H, Peng H, et al. Risk factors for intraoperative haemorrhage and bleeding risk scoring system for caesarean scar pregnancy: a casecontrol study ［J］. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2015, 195: 141145. ［17］Fang Qingxian, Sun Li, Tang Yunhui, et al. Quantitative risk assessment to guide the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy ［J］. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: the Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2017, 139(1): 7883. ［18］TimorTritsch I E, Monteagudo A, Bennett T A, et al. A new minimally invasive treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy and cervical pregnancy ［J］. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2016, 215(3): 351.

相似文献/References:

[1]于晓兰.剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的病理特点[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2013,(04):0.
　YU Xiao-lan.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2013,(8):0.
[2]董海伟,杨晓惠,顾向应,等.超声诊断技术在剖宫产瘢痕妊娠中的应用[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2013,(04):0.
　DONG Hai-wei,YANG Xiao-hui,GU Xiang-ying *.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2013,(8):0.
[3]王运昌,陈梅,张周龙,等.超声在剖宫产瘢痕妊娠诊断及治疗中的应用价值[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2014,(04):0.
　WANG Yun-chang,CHEN Mei,ZHANG Zhou-long,et al.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2014,(8):0.
[4]付鑫,程龙凤,王蔼明,等.宫腔镜手术联合干细胞在宫腔粘连中的应用进展[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2015,(09):0.
[5]张天宏,史小雨,冯力民,等.宫腹腔镜在剖宫产瘢痕妊娠诊治中的应用[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2015,(10):0.
[6]刘彩霞,郭宝枝,刘爱珍,等.腹腔镜治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠术中中转开腹手术原因分析[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2015,(11):0.
　LIU Cai-xia,GUO Bao-zhi,LIU Ai-zhen,et al.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2015,(8):0.
[7]闻人昉,熊小娟,丁兴琳,等.剖宫产瘢痕妊娠介入治疗医疗费用特征分析[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2016,(02):0.
　WEN Ren-fang,XIONG Xiao-juan,DIN Xing-lin,et al.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2016,(8):0.
[8]石一复,郝敏,李娟清,等.7所医学院校附属医院2010～2014年正常和异常妊娠浅析[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2016,(06):0.
　SHI Yi-fu,HAO Min,LI Juan-qing,et al.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2016,(8):0.
[9]王新波,谢玉翠,王来栋,等.3种方案用于剖宫产瘢痕妊娠药物治疗大出血的对比观察[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2016,(11):0.
　WANG Xin-Bo,XIE Yu-Cui,WANG Lai-Dong,et al.[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2016,(8):0.
[10]石一复*,郝敏,李娟清,等.7所医学院校附属医院2010~2014年正常和 异常妊娠浅析[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2016,(6):6.
　SHI Yi-fu*,HAO Min,LI Juan-qing,et al.Analysis of normal and abnormal pregnancies in 7 affiliated hospitals of medical colleges between 2010 and 2014[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2016,(8):6.
[11]杜清华,刘贵朋*.探究预测宫腔镜治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠结局的指标[J].中国计划生育和妇产科,2019,(10):53.
　DU Qing-hua,LIU Gui-peng*.Exploring indicators of predicting outcome of hysteroscopic surgery in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy[J].Chinese Journal of Family Planning & Gynecotokology,2019,(8):53.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
北京市医院管理局临床医学发展专项经费资助（项目编号：ZYLX201830）
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-08-25