Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Materials and Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):731–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mohapatra I, Samantray SR. Scar ectopic pregnancy: an emerging challenge. Cureus. 2021;13(7):e16673. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.16673.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Feng XL, Xu L, Guo Y, et al. Factors influencing rising caesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(1):30–9. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.090399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shafqat G, Khandwala K, Iqbal H, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: an experience of three cases with review of literature. Cureus. 2018;10(2):e2133. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gao L, Huang Z, Gao J, et al. Uterine artery embolization followed by dilation and curettage within 24 hours compared with systemic methotrexate for cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;127(2):147–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Giampaolino P, De Rosa N, Morra I, et al. Management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a single-institution retrospective review. Biomed Res Int. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6486407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lin SY, Hsieh CJ, Tu YA, et al. New ultrasound grading system for cesarean scar pregnancy and its implications for management strategies: an observational cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0202020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Karlsen K, Hrobjartsson A, Korsholm M, et al. Fertility after uterine artery embolization of fibroids: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4566-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu Y, Zhou L, Chen L, et al. Efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of cesarean scar pregnancy type. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(44):e17741. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pędraszewski P, Wlaźlak E, Panek W, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a new challenge for obstetricians. J Ultrason. 2018;18(72):56–62. https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2018.0009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pokhrel M, Acharya SP, Sharma J, et al. Scar pregnancy a diagnostic conundrum: a case report. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021;59(235):288–91. https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.5202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Long Y, Zhu H, Hu Y, et al. Interventions for non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7(7):CD011174. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011174.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Feng Y, Chen S, Li C, et al. Curettage after uterine artery embolization combined with methotrexate treatment for caesarean scar pregnancy. Exp Ther Med. 2016;12(3):1469–75. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kwasniewska A, Stupak A, Krzyzanowski A, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: uterine artery embolization combined with a hysterectomy at 13 weeks’ gestation–a case report and review of the literature. Ginekol Pol. 2014;85(12):961–7. https://doi.org/10.17772/gp/1890 (PMID: 25669068).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Agarwal N, Gainder S, Chopra S, et al. The management of scar ectopic: a single-center experience. Cureus. 2021;13(6):e15881. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15881.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tan G, Xiang X, Guo W, et al. Study of the impact of uterine artery embolization (UAE) on endometrial microvessel density (MVD) and angiogenesis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(4):1079–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0599-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vendittelli F, Savary D, Storme B, et al. Ovarian thrombosis and uterine synechiae after arterial embolization for a late postpartum haemorrhage. Case Rep Womens Health. 2014;22(5):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crwh.2014.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Qian ZD, Weng Y, Du YJ, et al. Management of persistent caesarean scar pregnancy after curettage treatment failure. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1395-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Saha MM, Biswas SC, Alam H, et al. Assessment of blood loss in abdominal myomectomy by intramyometrial vasopressin administration versus conventional tourniquet application. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(5):QC10–3. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17484.7789.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chudnoff S, Glazer S, Levie M. Review of vasopressin use in gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(4):422–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang J, Zhao R, Qian H, et al. Pituitrin local injection versus uterine artery embolization in the management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(5):1711–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14720.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Jiangsu Province Health Department, Project of Social Women Affairs Section, who funded this research under grant number F201921.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Juveria Rahman and Yixuan Qiu contributed equally to the work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology, Jiangsu Province Hospital and Nanjing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital, 300 Guangzhoulu, Gulou District, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210029, China

    Juveria Rahman, Yixuan Qiu, Xiong Yuan, Tonghui Ji & Huihua Dai

  2. Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210029, China

    Sajjaad H. Kassim

Authors
  1. Juveria Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yixuan Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiong Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sajjaad H. Kassim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tonghui Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Huihua Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huihua Dai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standard

The study was approved by the institutional local ethics committee of Jiangsu Province Hospital (2019-NT-24) and informed consent was also obtained from the patients.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahman, J., Qiu, Y., Yuan, X. et al. Pituitrin Injection before Hysteroscopic Curettage for Treating Type I Cesarean Scar Pregnancy in Comparison with Uterine Artery Embolization: A Retrospective Study. J Obstet Gynecol India 73, 229–234 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-022-01724-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-022-01724-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation