切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (01) : 31 -38. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2019.01.006

所属专题: 文献

论著

剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗策略的临床疗效及并发症发生情况研究
肖卓妮1,(), 杨菁1, 徐望明1   
  1. 1. 武汉大学人民医院生殖医学中心、湖北省辅助生殖与胚胎发育医学临床研究中心 430060
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-15 修回日期:2019-01-03 出版日期:2019-02-01
  • 通信作者: 肖卓妮

Study on treatment effects and complications of different treatment methods for cesarean scar pregnancy

Zhuoni Xiao1,(), Jing Yang1, Wangming Xu1   

  1. 1. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Clinical Research Center for Reproductive Medicine and Embryo Development of Hubei Province, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430060, Hubei Province, China
  • Received:2018-10-15 Revised:2019-01-03 Published:2019-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Zhuoni Xiao
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xiao Zhuoni, Email:
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China(81471455, 81100418)
引用本文:

肖卓妮, 杨菁, 徐望明. 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗策略的临床疗效及并发症发生情况研究[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(01): 31-38.

Zhuoni Xiao, Jing Yang, Wangming Xu. Study on treatment effects and complications of different treatment methods for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2019, 15(01): 31-38.

目的

比较不同策略治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠(CSP)的临床疗效及并发症发生情况。

方法

采用回顾性分析方法,选择2014年9月1日至2017年5月31日,于武汉大学人民医院妇产科、生殖医学中心就诊的103例CSP患者为研究对象。按照CSP治疗方案将其分为3组:A组[n=26,采取甲氨蝶呤(MTX)+手术治疗],B组[n=35,采取子宫动脉栓塞术(UAE)+手术治疗],以及C组(n=42,采取单纯手术治疗)。根据MTX治疗方式的不同,将A组患者进一步分为A1亚组(n=12,采取孕囊局部注射MTX+手术治疗),A2亚组(n=14,采取肌内注射MTX+手术治疗)。收集A、B及C组CSP患者的临床病例资料,对于治疗前血清β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素(hCG)水平、住院时间、出院时血清β-hCG水平下降比例等呈非正态分布的计量资料比较,采用Kruskal-Wallis H秩和检验,进一步两两比较,采用Mann-Whitney U检验,并采用Bonferroni法调整检验水准。A、B及C组患者术中大出血、术后宫腔黏连、妊娠组织残留发生率等计数资料比较,采用χ2检验,进一步两两比较,采用Fisher确切概率法,并调整检验水准。本研究遵循的程序符合2013年修订的《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言》要求。

结果

①A、B及C组CSP患者的年龄、孕次、既往剖宫产术次数、孕龄、阴道流血及下腹疼痛发生率、孕囊直径、残存宫腔壁厚度、宫腔壁厚度≤3 mm所占比例、胎心搏动发生率及浅表型、部分型、完全型CSP所占比例分别比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②A、B及C组患者治疗前血清β-hCG水平分别为120 004 IU/L(16 720~181 727 IU/L)、38 219 IU/L(23 194~100 029 IU/L)、22 557 IU/L(9 113~49 573 IU/L),3组总体比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=9.987,P=0.007)。进一步进行两两比较的结果显示,A组患者治疗前血清β-hCG水平明显高于B、C组,差异均有统计学意义(U=266.000、262.000,P=0.013、0.009)。③A、B及C组患者住院时间、术中大出血发生率、出院时血清β-hCG水平下降比例分别总体比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=21.010、9.786、37.590,P<0.001、=0.044、<0.001)。进一步进行两两比较的结果显示,A组患者住院时间显著长于B、C组,C组患者术中大出血发生率显著高于B组,A、B组患者出院时血清β-hCG水平下降比例均显著高于C组,并且差异均有统计学意义(住院时间:U=170.000、176.000,均为P<0.001;术中大出血:P=0.014;出院时血清β-hCG水平下降比例:U=171.000、412.000,P<0.001、=0.001)。A1亚组中,无一例患者发生术中大出血。A1亚组患者住院时间显著长于B、C组,出院时血清β-hCG水平下降比例显著高于A2亚组及B、C组,并且差异均有统计学意义(U=53.000、43.000、37.000、100.000、36.000,P<0.001、<0.001、=0.016、=0.018、<0.001)。④A、B及C组患者术后1个月妊娠组织残留发生率分别为0(0/26)、2.9%(1/35)、21.4%(9/42),术后6个月宫腔黏连发生率分别为0(0/26)、20.0%(7/35)、0(0/35),A、B及C组术后1个月妊娠组织残留、术后6个月宫腔黏连发生率分别总体比较,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=11.250、14.590,P<0.001、=0.004)。进一步进行两两比较的结果显示,C组患者术后1个月妊娠组织残留发生率明显高于A组,B组患者术后6个月宫腔黏连发生率明显高于A、C组,差异均有统计学意义(P=0.010、0.016、0.002)。

结论

局部或全身注射MTX联合手术治疗CSP,疗效可靠、并发症少。由于UAE联合手术治疗CSP可对患者生育功能造成严重影响,临床应谨慎选择。因为本研究仅为回顾性分析,采取局部或全身注射MTX、UAE等不同方案治疗CSP的疗效,仍然有待多中心、大样本、随机对照研究进一步证实。

Objective

To compare the treatment effects and complications of different treatment methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and explore the optimal treatment method for CSP.

Methods

A total of 103 women who were diagnosed as CSP in Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from September 1, 2014, to May 31, 2017 were selected as research subjects. According to different treatment methods of CSP, they were divided into group A (n=26) who received the combination of local or systematic methotrexate (MTX) injection and surgery, group B (n=35) who received the combination of uterine arterial embolization (UAE) and surgery, and group C (n=42) who only received surgery. And the patients of group A were further divided into subgroup A1 (n=12, with treatment of gestational sac local injection of MTX and surgery), and subgroup A2 (n=14, with treatment of whole body intramuscular injection MTX and surgery) according to different treatment methods of MTX. The clinical data of group A, B and C were collected by retrospective method. The measurement data with abnormal distribution, such as the initial serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level before treatment, length of hospital stay, the decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge among group A, B and C were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis H rank sum test, and Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment was applied for further comparision between each two different groups. The categorical data, such as the incidences of intraoperative hemorrhage, intrauterine adhesion and embryo residue were analyzed with chi-square test among the three groups (group A, B and C) or four groups (subgroup A1 and A2, and group B, C). Fisher′s exact test with adjustment of P value was applied for further comparision between each two groups. The study was in accordance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki revised in 2013.

Results

①There were no statistical differences in age, gravidity, times of previous cesarean section, gestational age, the incidences of vaginal bleeding and lower abdomen pain, mean diameter of gestation sac, thickness of remnant myometrial wall, proportion of myometrial wall thickness ≤3 mm, incidence of fetal heartbeat, and proportions of superficial, partial, and full CSP among group A, B and C (P>0.05). ②The initial serum β-hCG level before treatment of group A, B and C was 120 004 IU/L (16 720-181 727 IU/L), 38 219 IU/L (23 194-100 029 IU/L) and 22 557 IU/L (9 113-49 573 IU/L), respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (χ2=9.987, P=0.007). The results of further comparison showed that the initial serum β-hCG level before treatment of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (U=266.000, P=0.013) and group C (U=262.000, P=0.009). ③There were significant differences in the initial serum β-hCG level before treatment (χ2=21.010, P<0.001), length of hospital stay (χ2=9.786, P=0.001) and decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge (χ2=37.590, P<0.001) among group A, B and C. For further comparision, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group A compared with group B and C (U=170.000, 176.000, both P<0.001), the incidence of intraoperative hemorrhage of group C was significantly higher compared with group B (P=0.014), and the decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge was significantly higher in group A and B compared with group C (U=171.000, P<0.001; U=412.000, P=0.001). None intraoperative hemorrhage in occurred subgroup A1. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer in subgroup A1 compared with group B and C (U=53.000, 43.000, both P<0.001), and the decrease ratio of serum β-hCG level at the time of discharge was significantly higher in subgroup A1 compared with subgroup A2 and group B, C (U=37.000, P=0.016; U=100.000, P=0.018; U=36.000, P<0.001). ④The incidence of embryo residue in one month after surgery was 0 (0/26), 2.9% (1/35) and 21.4% (9/42) in group A, B and C, respectively. The incidence of intrauterine adhesion in six months after surgery was 0 (0/26), 20.0% (7/35) and 0 (0/35) in group A, B and C, respectively. There were significant differences in the incidence of embryo residue in one month after surgery (χ2=14.590, P<0.001) and the incidence of intrauterine adhesion in six months after surgery (χ2=11.250, P=0.004) among group A, B and C. For further comparision, the incidence of embryo residue in one month after surgery was higher in group C compared with group A (P=0.010), the incidence of intrauterine adhesion in six months after surgery was higher in group B compared with group A and C (P=0.016, 0.002).

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided local or systematic injection of MTX combined with surgery for CSP is reliable and leads to few complications. The combination of UAE with surgery should be chosen carefully because of its potential fertility complication. Because this study is just a retrospective research, the effects of local or systemic injection of MTX, UAE and other different treatment methods for CSP, still need to be confirmed by multi-center, large-sample, randomized controlled studies.

图3 完全型剖宫产瘢痕妊娠彩色多普勒超声声像图(图3A:右侧子宫动脉血流;图3B:左侧子宫动脉血流;图3C:子宫切口处血流;图3D:子宫瘢痕妊娠三维图像)
表1 A、B及C组剖宫产瘢痕妊娠患者一般临床资料比较
表2 A、B及C组剖宫产瘢痕妊娠患者治疗前血清β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素水平比较[IU/L,M(P25P75)]
表3 A、B及C组剖宫产瘢痕妊娠患者,A1亚组与A2亚组及B、C组剖宫产瘢痕妊娠患者治疗情况比较
表4 A、B及C组剖宫产瘢痕妊娠患者术后随访并发症发生情况比较[例数(%)]
[1]
Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 107(6): 1373-1381.
[2]
Kanat-Pektas M, Bodur S, Dundar O, et al. Systematic review: what is the best first-line approach for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy? [J]. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 55(2): 263-269.
[3]
Wang Q, Peng HL, He L, et al. Reproductive outcomes after previous cesarean scar pregnancy: follow up of 189 women[J]. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 54(5): 551-553.
[4]
Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in caesarean section scars: the 8 year experience of one medical centre[J]. Hum Reprod, 2004, 19(2): 278-284.
[5]
Petersen BK, Hoffmann E, Rifbjerg Larsen C, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 105(4): 958-967.
[6]
中华医学会计划生育学分会.剖宫产瘢痕妊娠诊断与治疗共识[J].中华医学杂志,2012,92(25): 1731-1733.
[7]
中华医学会妇产科学分会计划生育学组.剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠诊治专家共识(2016)[J].中华妇产科杂志,2016,51(8): 568-572.
[8]
Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review [J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2017, 24(5): 731-738.
[9]
Pędraszewski P, Wlaźlak E, Panek W, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a new challenge for obstetricians[J]. J Ultrason, 2018, 18(72): 56-62.
[10]
Liu J, Chai Y, Yu Y, et al. The value of 3-dimensional color Doppler in predicting intraoperative hemorrhage for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97(33): e11969.
[11]
Sun QL, Wu XH, Luo L, et al. Characteristics of women with mixed mass formation after evacuation following uterine artery chemoembolization for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018, 297(4): 1059-1066.
[12]
Larsen JV, Solomon MH. Pregnancy in a uterine scar sacculus: an unusual cause of postabortal haemorrhage. A case report[J]. S Afr Med J, 1978, 53(4): 142-143.
[13]
Liu G, Wu J, Cao J, et al. Comparison of three treatment strategies for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2017, 296(2): 383-389.
[14]
Gao L, Hou YY, Sun F, et al. A retrospective comparative study evaluating the efficacy of adding intra-arterial methotrexate infusion to uterine artery embolisation followed by curettage for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018, 297(5): 1205-1211.
[15]
Qian ZD, Weng Y, Du YJ, et al. Management of persistent caesarean scar pregnancy after curettage treatment failure[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2017, 17(1): 208.
[16]
Yamaguchi M, Honda R, Erdenebaatar C, et al. Treatment of cervical pregnancy with ultrasound-guided local methotrexate injection[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 50(6): 781-787.
[17]
Feng Y, Chen S, Li C, et al. Curettage after uterine artery embolization combined with methotrexate treatment for caesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2016, 12(3): 1469-1475.
[18]
Cottier JP, Fignon A, Tranquart F, et al. Uterine necrosis after arterial embolization for postpartum hemorrhage[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2002, 100(5 Pt 2): 1074-1077.
[19]
Godfrey CD, Zbella EA. Uterine necrosis after uterine artery embolization for leiomyoma[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2001, 98(5 Pt 2): 950-952.
[20]
Sirkeci F, Narang L, Naguib N, et al. Uterine artery embolization for severe symptomatic fibroids: effects on fertility and symptoms[J]. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29(8): 1832-1833.
[21]
Karlsen K, Hrobjartsson A, Korsholm M, et al. Fertility after uterine artery embolization of fibroids: a systematic review[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018, 297(1): 13-25.
[1] 庄蕙嘉, 岳志成, 钟坤岑, 朱慧莉. 乳腺癌患者生育力保存的研究进展[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 238-242.
[2] 张曼, 李明庆, 李军苗. 当归四逆汤联合甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 648-652.
[3] 陈甜甜, 王晓东, 余海燕. 双胎妊娠合并Gitelman综合征孕妇的妊娠结局及文献复习[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 559-568.
[4] 居晓庆, 金蕴洁, 王晓燕. 剖宫产术后瘢痕子宫患者再次妊娠阴道分娩发生子宫破裂的影响因素分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 575-581.
[5] 王蓓蓓, 董启秀, 郗红燕, 于庆云, 张丽君, 式光. 早孕期孕妇药物流产失败的影响因素分析与构建相关预测模型及其对药物流产成功的预测价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 588-594.
[6] 陈絮, 詹玉茹, 王纯华. 孕妇ABO血型联合甲状腺功能检测对预测妊娠期糖尿病的临床价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 604-610.
[7] 周梦玲, 薛志伟, 周淑. 妊娠合并子宫肌瘤的孕期变化及其与不良妊娠结局的关系[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(05): 611-615.
[8] 冉晨曦, 沈如飞, 廖明钰, 廖倩, 周玲, 张玉玲, 隆敏. 垂体瘤孕妇的诊治与围分娩期管理[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(04): 487-491.
[9] 陈樱, 陈艳莉. 高龄孕妇心率变异性原因及围产结局分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 295-301.
[10] 冯丹艳, 曹晓辉, 史玉霞. 血清脂联素与胎盘亮氨酸氨肽酶对妊娠期糖尿病患者妊娠结局的影响[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 302-308.
[11] 匡德凤, 李志国, 华绍芳, 薛凤霞. 高脂诱导孕鼠血清及胎盘组织脂肪酸结合蛋白-4及相关脂蛋白水平变化及其意义[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(03): 338-344.
[12] 马聪, 李雪靖, 郑晓佐, 张晓阳, 段坤峰, 刘国强, 郄素会. 关节腔内注射富血小板血浆与透明质酸钠治疗Ⅰ-Ⅲ期膝骨关节炎的对比研究[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(05): 282-288.
[13] 高显奎, 赵太云, 陆兴俊, 张洪领, 房修罗, 闫碧春, 王胤, 王永翠, 刘苗苗, 冉若男. 内镜电凝止血与组织胶注射治疗上消化道溃疡伴出血的疗效观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 452-455.
[14] 李莹倩, 李华山. 基于真实世界的完全性直肠脱垂治疗方式评价[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 700-705.
[15] 刘雪云, 范颖, 姚爱军, 张胜苗, 吕亚妮, 张冰清, 张晓宇, 刘恒. 基于微信小程序的个体化、全程护理干预对孕妇孕期体重及分娩结局的影响[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 455-460.
阅读次数
全文


摘要