Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2022

Open Access 01.12.2022 | Case report

Multidisciplinary treatment of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: a case report and literature review

verfasst von: Hainan Xu, Dali Cheng, Qing Yang, Dandan Wang

Erschienen in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Ausgabe 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy (REP) is an extremely rare type of ectopic pregnancy, with a total of less than 32 cases reported in the English literature. Early diagnosis of REP is very difficult and all treatments entail a high risk of life-threatening complications.

Case presentation

A 29-year-old nulliparous woman presented a history of 50-day amenorrhea and 7-day upper abdominal pain without vaginal spotting. The serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) value was 65,004 m-international units per milliliter (mIU/mL), but no intrauterine gestational sac was found via transvaginal sonography (TVS). Then transabdominal ultrasonography (TAS) and abdominal contrast-enhanced computer tomography (CT) identified a retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy (REP) tightly adjacent to the inferior vena cava and the abdominal aorta. After consultation from a multidisciplinary team, systemic methotrexate (MTX, intramuscular 20 mg daily for 5 consecutive days) combined with ultrasound-guided local potassium chloride solution injection into the gestational sac was scheduled firstly for the patient. However, serum β-hCG continued to increase and the patient experienced worsening abdominal pain. Laparotomy was performed jointly by a gynecologist and a vascular surgeon. During the operation, the gestational sac with fetal bud measuring about 4.5 × 4.0x3.0 cm, tightly adherent to the surface of inferior vena cava and the left side of abdominal aorta, was carefully dissociated out from the surrounding tissues and removed en bloc. Histopathology examination confirmed the diagnosis of REP. The patient recovered uneventfully and her serum β-hCG returned to normal range on the 23th postoperative day.

Conclusions

Considering the possibility of REP and combined radiological examinations, such as ultrasonography and CT, are crucial for the early diagnosis of this rare condition. A multidisciplinary team is necessary to treat REP.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
hCG
Human chorionic gonadotropin
REP
Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy
TVS
Transvaginal ultrasonography
TAS
Transabdominal ultrasonography
CT
Computer tomography
MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging
IVF-ET
In vitro fertilization – embryo transfer
MTX
Methotrexate

Background

Ectopic pregnancy is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity encountered in the first trimester [1]. Nearly all ectopic pregnancies (95%) are implanted in the fallopian tube, whereas only merely 1% of ectopic pregnancies are implanted in the abdominal cavity [2]. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy (REP), in which the gestational sac is implanted in the retroperitoneal cavity of the pelvis and abdomen, refers to an extremely rare type of abdominal ectopic pregnancy [3]. Once a retroperitoneal gestational sac ruptures, it can cause a catastrophic hemorrhage, especially for those located close to large blood vessels [35]. Here we report a case of REP implanted on the surface of the inferior vena cava, as well as the abdominal aorta, which was successfully treated in a multidisciplinary team. In order to provide reference for clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of REP, we also conducted a review on all of the reported cases in English literature.

Case presentation

A 29-year-old pregnant woman, gravida 1, para 0, one previous artificial abortion, with regular menstrual cycle, was admitted via the emergency department on December 27 2021 with a history of 50-day amenorrhea and 7-day moderate to intermittent upper abdominal pain. She had no injury history or history of previous pelvic inflammatory diseases or gynecological surgery. Her vital signs were within normal range. General physical examination revealed nothing remarkable. Gynecological examination found no vaginal spotting, and the uterine cervix was smooth without tenderness upon palpation and movement; the uterine body was soft and enlarged equivalent to the size of 50-day-gestation; the right adnexa was slightly thickened without tenderness; and the left adnexa was unremarkable. The serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) value was 65,004 m-international units per milliliter (mIU/mL) on admission. Color transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) of the pelvis demonstrated no intrauterine gestational sac but thicken endometrium of 1.7 centimeter (cm) (Fig. 1a), a right adnexal well-bounded, medially echoic mass approximately 2.3 × 2.0 × 2.0 cm in size with signs of blood supply; no fluid collection in the pouch of Douglas. Because the results of TVS were not parallel with the clinical characteristics and serum β-hCG level, a full transabdominal ultrasonography (TAS) was applied to extend the scan scope. TAS scan revealed a heterogeneous mass approximately 3.8 × 3.1 × 2.3 cm in size, which consisted of a gestational sac with an 4 mm embryo bud with positive cardiac pulsation (Fig. 1b). The pregnancy mass was tightly adjacent to the inferior vena cava and the abdominal aorta. We furtherly completed an abdominal contrast-enhanced computer tomography (CT), which showed the gestational sac with the embryo in the retroperitoneal space and detailed its tight link with the great vessels alongside (Fig. 1c). Highly suspected of rare REP and lack of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease, a multidisciplinary consultation composed of a gynecologist, a vascular surgeon, a radiologist and an interventional physician was scheduled. For fear of vascular injury and unmanageable intraoperative bleeding potentially associated with excising this mass, the patients decided to administer systemic methotrexate (MTX) combined with local potassium chloride solution injection guided by ultrasonography. Daily 20-miligram(mg) intramuscular MTX for 5 consecutive days was initiated on December 28, 2021. And on the same day, ultrasound-guided paracentesis and local potassium chloride (KCl) injection into the embryo bud was operated successfully (Fig. 1d). On December 30 2021, serum β-hCG elevated to 79,382 mIU/ml, but a repeat TAS showed that though the size of REP mass didn’t change, the fetal heart beat was gone. The patient remained stable with close observation in the hospital. Then the medication therapy was continued. However, on December 31 2021, the patient reported worsening abdominal pain and her serum β-hCG level continued to increase (81,447 mIU/ml). Consequently, the patient agreed to undertake an exploratory laparotomy despite stable vital signs and no drop in hemoglobin level (Hb 118 g/L). This was accomplished through a midline incision about 20 cm in length under general anesthesia. While exploring the pelvic cavity, we found a slightly enlarged and soft uterus with bilateral intact fallopian tubes. The left ovary was completely normal while a corpus luteum about 2.0 × 2.0 cm in size was found in the right ovary without active bleeding. No evidence of lesion and pelvic adhesion was found. No fluid collected in the abdominopelvic cavity. Then an abdominal vascular surgeon joined the operation. Further exploration of the upper abdomen revealed a retroperitoneal mass measuring 4.5 × 4.0 × 3.0 cm, inferior the transverse mesentery and directly attached tightly to the surface of inferior vena cava and the left side of abdominal aorta, with a small amount of local retroperitoneal hemorrhage. The retroperitoneal space was entered. After the surrounding connective tissue was carefully dissociated and the communicating vessels between the mass and the inferior vena cava and abdominal aorta were ligated, the pregnancy mass was removed en bloc. No blood transfusion was required. The small wound surface on the inferior vena cava was sutured meticulously with absorbable suture to ensure sufficient hemostasis. No retroperitoneal drain was placed. The total blood loss was 50 millilitre (ml) and the operation time was 92 min.
An embryo bud was detected macroscopically inside the resected retroperitoneal mass. Pathological examination confirmed the presence of chorionic villi under an inverted microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) (Fig. 2).
Serum β-hCG decreased to 21,707 mIU/mL on the first postoperative day and 582 mIU/mL on the 6th postoperative day. The patient recovered smoothly and was discharged on the 6th postoperative day. Her serum β-hCG were strictly monitored in the outpatient setting and returned to normal range on the 23th postoperative day. Changes in the serum β-hCG levels over time are shown in Fig. 3.

Discussion and conclusions

Abdominal pregnancy is the rarest type of ectopic pregnancies, possessing eight times higher rates of maternal mortality and morbidity than nonabdominal cases [2]. According to the criteria established by Studdiford in 1942 [6], only a very small fraction of the reported cases could be exclusively diagnosed as primary abdominal pregnancy. Reported common sites of primary abdominal pregnancy are the pouch of Douglas, posterior uterine wall, uterine fundus, anterior abdominal wall, omentum, liver, spleen, and diaphragm [7, 8]. However, abdominal pregnancy in the retroperitoneal space is an exceedingly rare occurrence. Due to its rarity, it is impossible to accurately calculate the incidence of REP. Given its propensity to implant along major vessels, REP poses a high risk of fatal rupture and bleeding. To date, however, there is no well-defined consensus or guideline for clinical management. Bizarre implantation locations, non-specific symptoms and varied clinical presentations can make the diagnosis and treatment of REP challenging, sometimes resulting in misdiagnosis. In order to better guide clinical practice, we conducted a search of PubMed database (English language; 1970–2022; search terms: “retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy” and “retroperitoneal pregnancy”), and supplemented related cases through literature tracking. A total of 31 literatures including 32 REP cases, plus the case presented here, were collected and thoroughly analyzed, focusing on the clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis (details listed in Table 1 [4, 5, 937]).
Table 1
Summary of all reported cases of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy in the English literature (n = 33)
First author,year
Age,y
Previous normal pregnancy
Previous EP/type
Previous tubal surgery
Pregnancy way/Embryo number
Amenorrhea duration (d)
Primary symptoms
Emergency/shock
hCG before treatment (IU/L)
Auxilliary examinations
Hall, 1973 [4]
21
2
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingectomy
SP
35
Left-sided abdominal pain and fainting
Yes/Yes
NA
No
Sotus PC, 1977 [5]
30
3
0
No
SP
73
Vaginal bleeding, persistent left lower-quadrant pain
No
NA
TAS
Ferland, 1991 [9]
32
NA
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingectomy
IVF/3
54
Right abdominal pain
Yes/No
19,540
TAS
Dmowski, 2002 [10]
34
0
0
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/3
58
Right epigastric and right upper back pain, weakness
Yes/Yes
38,635
TAS/TVS
Reid, 2003 [11]
28
2
3/tubal pregnancies
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/3
70
Severe left iliac fossa pain
No
5000
No
Lee, 2005 [12]
21
0
0
No
SP
42
Left flank pain
Yes/No
NA
TAS
Meire,2007 [13]
30
2
0
No
SP
161
Asymptomatic
No
NA
TAS/CT
Iwama, 2007 [14]
31
0
1/tubal pregnancy
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/3
49
Slight upper abdominal pain
No
31,778
TAS/MRI
Chang, 2008 [15]
33
2
0
No
SP
44
Progressive lower abdominal pain and 3 episodes of syncope
Yes/Yes
NA
TVS
Lin, 2008 [16]
19
0
0
No
SP
49
Right lower quadrant abdominal pain and vaginal spotting
No
267.31
TAS/TVS/CT
Bae, 2009 [17]
28
1
0
No
SP
54
Vaginal spotting
No
20,328.2
TVS/CT
Persson, 2010 [18]
33
1
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingectomy
IVF/2
44
Vaginal bleeding
No
18,032
TVS
Okorie CO, 2010 [19]
28
3
0
No
SP
47
Moderate to intermittent significant lower abdominal pain
Yes/No
NA
TAS
Mart ınez-Varea, 2011 [20]
37
1
0
No
IUI
43
Lower abdominal pain
Yes/No
7787
TVS
Jiang, 2014 [21]
33
2
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingectomy
SP
54
mild lower abdominal pain
No
18,920
TVS/TAS/MRI/CT
Liang,2014 [22]
26
0
1/tubal pregnancy
Left salpingectomy
IVF/3
90
left intermittent flank pain
No
1076
TVS/TAS/CT
Protopapas, 2014 [23]
31
1
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingectomy
SP
42
Asymptomatic
No
9832
TVS
Ouassour,2017 [24]
35
2
1/tubal pregnancy
Left salpingectomy
SP
49
Asymptomatic
No
6000
TVS/TAS/MRI
Yang, 2017 [25]
32
5
0
No
SP
38
Left lower abdominal pain accompanied
with mild nausea, tender breasts, and rectal pressure
No
1880
TVS
Pak,2018 [26]
30
3
0
No
SP
62
Left flank and abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding
Yes/Yes
40,532
No
Yang,2018 [27]
34
1
0
No
SP
52
Bellyache, dizziness, flustered, fatigue, thirsty, and urinary incontinence
Yes/Yes
6803
TVS/CT
Veleminsky, 2018 [28]
38
NA
0
No
SP
49
Asymptomatic
No
33,742
TVS/TAS
Zhang, 2018 [29]
29
NA
0
No
SP
60
Left lower flank pain
No
36,312
TVS/TAS
Huang, 2019 [30]
37
0
0
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/2
68
Asymptomatic
No
88,165
TAS/MRI
Huang, 2019 [30]
31
0
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingostomy
SP
73
Asymptomatic
No
97,333
TAS/CT
Lu, 2019 [31]
31
1
1/tubal pregnancy
Right salpingostomy
SP
54
Vaginal spotting and lower abdominal pain
No
47,440
TVS/TAS
Wang, 2020 [32]
33
2
3/tubal pregnancies
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/2
52
Left back pain, worsening
No
74,678
TVS/TAS/CT
Le,2020 [33]
31
NA
NA
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/1
41
Acute epigastric pain
Yes/No
20,625
TVS/TAS/CT
Hou, 2021 [34]
29
1
No
No
SP
49
First asymptomatic, then acute intolerable left abdomen pain
Yes/No
28,746
TVS/TAS/CT
Anh,2021 [35]
34
3
2/tubal pregnancies
Bilateral salpingectomy
IVF/2
51
Vaginal bleeding
No
36,386
TVS/TAS/MRI
Wen, 2021 [36]
28
2
No
No
SP
60
Left lower quadrant abdominal pain
Yes/No
99,286
TAS/MRI
Lorenzo,2021 [37]
33
0
0
No
SP
56
Acute abdominal pain
Yes/No
1053
TVS
This case
29
1
0
No
SP
50
Lower quadrant abdominal pain
Yes/No
65,004
TVS/TAS/CT
First author,year
Implantation site of REP
Size of the lesion (cm)
Embryo/cardiac activity
Initial diagnosis
Initial treatment method
Final treatment method
Rupture of REP
Blood transfusion
Definitive diagnosis
Hall, 1973 [4]
above the bifurcation of the aorta
NA
No
-
Laparotomy/RRP
No
Yes
Yes
Surgical findings and pathology
Sotus PC, 1977 [5]
left side of the aorta and the superolateral side of the left iliac artery
8 × 10
Yes/No
Adnexal EP
Suction, D&C and laparoscopy, unremarkable
Laparotomy/partial RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Ferland, 1991 [9]
Upper abdominal retroperitoneal space
NA
No
-
Laparotomy/RRP
No
Yes
No
Pathology
Dmowski, 2002 [10]
Posterior to the duodenum and adherent to the head of pancreas
2 × 3
No
Failing intrauterine pregnancy after IVF
Laparotomy/RRP
No
Yes
Yes
Surgical findings and pathology
Reid, 2003 [11]
The bifurcation of the common iliac artery
6 × 6
No
Miscarriage
Evacuation of uterus
Laparoscopy, converted to Laparotomy/partial RRP
No
No
Pathology
Lee, 2005 [12]
Left paraaortic region below the left kidney
5
Yes/Yes
REP
Laparotomy/partial RRP
No
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Meire,2007 [13]
Retroperitoneal paravesical space on the right pelvic cavity
NA
Yes/No
Intrauterine midterm ancephalus
Vaginal induced abortion
Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings
Iwama, 2007 [14]
Adjacent to the aorta and pressed on the inferior vena cava
4.0 × 2.5
Yes/No
Adnexal EP
Evacuation of the uterus, diagnostic laparoscopy and then two-round i.m.MTX(50 mg/m2/per time)
Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings
Chang, 2008 [15]
Retroperitoneal space of the left paracolic sulcus
NA
No
Adnexal EP rupture
Laparoscopy/RRP
No
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Lin, 2008 [16]
At the right obturator foramen area
4.0 × 4.0
No
Adnexal EP
Diagnostic laparoscopy and D&C
Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Pathology
Bae, 2009 [17]
Implanted on inferior vena cava
3.4 × 2.6
Yes/Yes
Cornual pregnancy
Laparoscopic wedge resection of the left uterine cornua and D&C
Laparoscopy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Persson, 2010 [18]
In the obturator fossa
NA
Yes/Yes
Adnexal EP
First laparoscopic left salpingectomy
Second diagnostic laparoscopy/Robot-
assisted laparoscopy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Okorie CO, 2010 [19]
Overlying the inferior vena cava and the aorta near the second and third parts of the duodenum
3.8 × 4.1 cm then increased to 8.2 × 6.6 cm
No
Adnexal EP rupture
Exploratory laparotomy, then intramuscular MTX(100 mg), HCG declinced but abdominal pain aggravated
Emergent laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Pathology
Mart ınez-Varea, 2011 [20]
Next to the left uterosacral ligament
3.0 × 2.0
Yes/No
adnexal EP
Laparoscopy/RRP
Postoperative i.m. MTX50mg/m2
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Jiang, 2014 [21]
Inferior to the duodenum and attached to the surface of the inferior vena cava, as well as the abdominal aorta
6.0 × 6.0
Yes/No
Choriocarcinoma
D&C/intramuscular MTX (daily 20 mg for 5 consecutive days), HCG declined slowly
Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Pathology
Liang,2014 [22]
Next to the abdominal aorta, ovary vessels and the left renal vein
6.5 × 5.4
Yes/No
adnexal EP
Laparoscopic right salpingectomy, HCG elevated
Laparotomy/RRP
No
Yes
Surgical findings and pathology
Protopapas, 2014 [23]
Retroperitoneal broad ligament
3 × 2.5
Yes/Yes
Cornual pregnancy
Diagnostic laparoscopy
Second laparoscopy combined with hysterscopy guided with transvaginal
ultrasound probe
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Ouassour,2017 [24]
Attached to the left side of abdominal aorta
6.0
Yes/No
adnexal EP
Exploratory laparotomy
Second laparotmy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Yang, 2017 [25]
Lateral to the left sacrocervical ligament
2.1 × 2.0
No
adnexal EP
Laparoscopy/RRP
No
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Pak,2018 [26]
Retroperitoneal space on the left pelvic cavity
NA
No
休克直接开腹
First emergent laparotomy/ICU
Second laparotomy/evacuated hematoma
Yes
Yes
Pathology
Yang,2018 [27]
In the right lateral abdominal peritoneum region
12.0 × 8.0
No
REP
Laparoscopy/RRP
No
Yes
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Veleminsky, 2018 [28]
Above the vena cava inferior
2.7
Yes/No
Miscarriage/anembryonic pregnancy
Evacuation
Diagnostic laparoscopy/Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Zhang, 2018 [29]
On the left side of the abdominal aorta and encased the left renal vessels
4.1 × 2.9 cm,increasing to 11.0 cm
Yes/No
REP
MTX and selective arterial embolization therapy, HCG elevated
Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings
Huang, 2019 [30]
Under the left renal hilum, in front of the psoas muscle, and to the left of the abdominal aorta
4.2 × 4.2
Yes/Yes
REP
100 mg MTX injecting into the gestational sac under CT guidance
No
No
No
Radiological findings and gestational sac fluid pathology
Huang, 2019 [30]
Adjacent to the left renal hilum, the abdominal aorta, and the IVC, anterior and to the left of the L3 vertebra
4.6 × 3.4
Yes/No
REP
75 mg MTX injecting into the gestational sac under CT guidance
No
No
No
Radiological findings and gestational sac fluid pathology
Lu, 2019 [31]
Adjacent abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava
3.0 × 2.3
Yes/Yes
REP
Laparoscopy/partial RRP
No
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Wang, 2020 [32]
Implanted in the left psoas major muscle at the position of the left renal hilum
4.9 × 3.9
Yes/No
Embryo arrest
First D&C for intrauterine embryo arrest
Laparotomy/RRP with 10 mg MTX injected locally
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Le,2020 [33]
Attached to the left side of the abdominal aorta
NA
No
REP
Laparotomy/RRP
No
No
No
Surgical findings
Hou, 2021 [34]
Between the abdomi-nal aorta and left common iliac artery
2.7 × 2.5, then6 × 6 cm
Yes/No
adnexal EP
Diagnostic laparoscopy
Emergent laparotomy/RRP
Yes
Yes
Surgical findings and pathology
Anh,2021 [35]
In close proximity to the right common iliac artery
2.5 × 2.0
Yes/No
Intraabdominal EP
Laparoscopic removal of a small abdominal mass/evacuation of uterus
Second laparotomy/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Wen, 2021 [36]
Below the left renal vessels and the abdominal aorta
5.0 × 4.0
Yes/Yes
Intrauterine pregnancy
D&C for induce abortion, HCG increased
Laparoscopy and 50 mg MTX injected locally/RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Lorenzo,2021 [37]
At the left posterior parametrium
3
Yes/Yes
adnexal EP
Diagnostic laparoscopy/MTX (50 mg/m2 body surface area), HCG elevated
Second laparoscopy /RRP
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
This case
Attached tightly to the surface of inferior vena cava and the left side of abdominal aorta
4.5 × 4.0
Yes/Yes
REP
Intramuscular MTX (daily 20 mg for 2 consecutive days), and US-guided local injection of KCl, HCG increased
Laparotomy
No
No
Surgical findings and pathology
Abbreviations: NA not applicable, SP spontaneous pregnancy, IVF in vitro fertilization, hCG human chorionic gonadotropin, TVS transvaginal ultrasonography, TAS transabdominal ultrasonography, CT computed tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, EP ectopic pregnancy, REP retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy, RRP resection of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy, MTX methotrexate, D&C Dilation & Curettage

Pathogenesis

The pathogenesis of primary REP is complex and still unelucidated, but three mechanistic hypotheses have been proposed. It is not surprising that the prevalence of ectopic pregnancy is higher following assisted reproductive technique (ART) procedures than in the general population [38]. Tubal pathology, previous tubal surgery, and previous ectopic pregnancy are the major indications for ART and both have been considered as a major risk factor for the ectopic pregnancy [38]. In this proposed mechanism, embryos are placed in the retroperitoneal space due to iatrogenic uterine perforation, or even less likely, through a fistulous tract formed following salpingectomy. Reviewing all the 33 REP cases, 39.4% (13/33) of the patients had a history of tubal pregnancy, of which 10 cases had 1 time, 1 case had 2 times and another 2 cases had 3 times. 48.5% (16/33) of the patients had a history of tubal surgery, of which 7 cases underwent bilateral salpingectomy and 9 underwent unilateral salpingectomy. 30.3% (10/33) of patients were IVF-ET, and 1 case had undergone intrauterine intro-uterine semination (IUI). However, this mechanism was not likely to explain every case with ART operation because the ET procedure was strictly conducted under sonographic guidance. The iatrogenic placement of the embryos in the retroperitoneal space of the mid or upper abdomen can definitely be excluded considering the length of the transfer catheter and the volume of the ET medium [911, 14]. Wang et al. [32] speculated that the fallopian tube stumps after resection could be spontaneously reperfused or formed a fistula, creating a possible communication between the uterine and the retroperitoneal cavity. However, in the case reported by Anh et al. [35], both fallopian tube stumps were visible and intact, and detached from the broad ligaments, excluding this explanation. It is also worth mentioning that 16 cases (48.5%) conceived naturally without tubal pathology or resection.
Ferland et al. [9] proposed a second yet not very convincing hypothesis that the embryo implants on the posterior peritoneal surface and reaches a retroperitoneal space by subsequent trophoblastic invasion through the peritoneum. However, there is no direct evidence to confirm this hypothesis.
The third hypothesis suggests that the fertilized ovum may reach the retroperitoneal space via lymphatic system, similar to the metastasis of gynecological cancer, as lymphatic tissue has been found with ectopic masses during postoperative pathological examination [4, 18, 22, 25, 28]. Lymphatic spread may also explain the frequent localization of REPs at the pelvic sidewalls or along the great vessels, corresponding to the known lymphatic drainage from the uterus. This possibility appeared to be the most plausible mechanism in our case for two reasons. First, there was no history of pelvic surgery or tubal pathology before this spontaneous pregnancy, and no abnormal channels were found between the uterus or fallopian tubes and the retroperitoneal cavity. Second, the gestational sac implanted on the inferior vena cava with intact peritoneum overlying it. In addition, the high proportion of cases associated with IVF may be explained by a deposit of a fertilized ovum deep in the endometrium facilitating a subsequent migration into lymph vessels. However, this intralymphatic migration hypothesis is not absolutely persuasive because only a few cases of REP have been reported to be surrounded by lymphatic tissue during pathological examination. The exact pathogenesis of REP is still worthy of further research.

Clinical characteristics

The age of 33 REP patients was 19–38 years old, with an average of 30.6y. Amenorrhea, abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding are the most common symptoms of REP. Compared with the lumen of the fallopian tube, the space of the retroperitoneal cavity is much larger and more complex, and so the ectopic gestational sac can grow bigger. The duration of amenorrhea was 35–161 days with an average of 56.8d. Due to the good embryonic development, the blood β-hCG before treatment was 267.3–99,286 IU/L with an average of as high as 31,673.4 IU/L. At the same time, over half of the patients (22/33, 66.7%) demonstrated embryo and/or fetal heartbeat on preoperative ultrasound. The size of ectopic pregnancy mass without rupture can even reach 10 cm. Meire et al. [13] reported a case of a retroperitoneal anencephalic fetus terminated at 23 weeks’ gestation. Among the 33 cases, only abdominal pain accounts for 57.6% (19/33), and only vaginal bleeding accounts for 9.1% (3/33). 12.1% (4/33) of them presented both abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding, and another 18.2% (6/33) were asymptomatic. The degree of pain is usually related to whether the pregnancy mass ruptures. And significantly, the region of pain does not fully reflect the implantation site of pregnancy. Only one case, reported by Wang et al. [32], complained of pain in the left lumbar back which might be caused by ectopic gestational sac growth resulting in stimulation of the nerve of the left psoas major muscle.
Theoretically, embryo implantation site should be randomly distributed in the retroperitoneal space. However, in fact, most of the reported REPs located along the great vessels. Ouyang et al. [3] suggested that, according to the implantation site, REP can be simply divided into two types: pelvic REP and abdominal REP. The former refers to the REP in the pelvic segment below the common iliac vessels, accounting for 27.3% (9/33); the latter refers to the REP around the abdominal aorta, the inferior vena cava, and the common iliac artery, accounting for 72.7% (24/33). Given its intimacy with great vessels, REPs pose a significant risk of life-threatening hemorrhage. Among them, 15.2% (5/33) had hemorrhagic shock at the time of presentation, and 15.2% (5/33) had blood transfusion during the operation.

Diagnosis and differential diagnosis

Due to the nonspecific clinical manifestations and complex pregnancy sites, the diagnosis of REP can be easily overlooked. In general, clinicians tend to focus the diagnosis on tubal pregnancy, without considering the possibility of REP. TVS examination was firstly undertaken in 63.3% (21/33) of the patients, and except 3 cases of rare heterotopic pregnancy after IVF-ET, the others showed thicken endometrium but no sign of intrauterine pregnancy. For those pelvic REPs, such as obturator fossa pregnancy, or uterosacral ligament pregnancy, TVS can easily misdiagnose it as an adnexal ectopic pregnancy. And those REPs in the mid or upper abdomen may be out of reach for TVS, which potentially increases the risk of misdiagnosis. Fortunately, the development of full abdominal ultrasonography, CT scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provide a strong support for early diagnosis of rare REP [29, 30, 35]. TAS is the most commonly used examination method (66.7%, 22/33), followed by CT (33.3%, 11/33) and MRI (18.2%, 6/33). Ultrasonography is superior to CT and MRI in determining the presence of yolk sac, embryo or fetal heartbeat, whereas the value of CT and MRI lies more in locating the pregnancy site and delineating the relationship between the gestational sac and the surrounding tissues. However, in some emergent situations, the patients (15.2%, 5/33) needed undertaking laparotomy or laparoscopy directly for life saving, and the diagnosis was made through surgical findings or postoperative pathology. Only 24.2% (8/33) were diagnosed with REP at the initial visit. 12 cases were misdiagnosed as an adnexal ectopic pregnancy and underwent laparoscopy, laparotomy or MTX treatment; 5 cases were misdiagnosed as simple failing intrauterine pregnancy and received medical abortion or curettage; 2 cases were misdiagnosed as cornual pregnancy and underwent laparoscopy; one case was misdiagnosed as intraabdominal pregnancy and underwent laparoscopic abdominal mass resection; and one was misdiagnosed as choriocarcinoma and treated by MTX chemotherapy. Therefore, misdiagnosis rate is quite high among REP cases. Several remarkable points need keeping in mind in the process of diagnosis. Firstly, we should closely monitor β-hCG levels and provide ultrasound examination timely. If there is a high β-hCG levels but no intrauterine pregnancy or no evidence of ordinary ectopic pregnancy, the possibility of REP should be considered and immediately investigated further with additional diagnostic procedures, especially for those with history of tubal surgery and IVF. Secondly, when there is a highly suspected of rare ectopic pregnancy, combined auxiliary examinations should be applied to exactly locate pregnancy site. Besides ultrasound, CT or MRI examination would be instrumental for diagnosis. Thirdly, when laparoscopy or laparotomy is taken in case of highly suspected ectopic pregnancy, but no obvious pregnancy mass is found, unusual locations such as the retroperitoneum should be carefully examined. If possible, intraoperative real-time ultrasound guidance may assist in finding the pregnancy site. Last but least, when the patient is hemodynamically unstable and imaging is unavailable, laparotomy only revealed retroperitoneal hematoma but no evidence of hemorrhagic spot, evacuation of retroperitoneal hematoma for histopathology may be helpful for diagnosis.

Treatment

Due to the high preoperative misdiagnosis rate, 63.4% (21/33) of REP patients have undergone two or more treatments (medication or surgery treatment), of which 6 cases experienced three treatments. Considering the invasive and vascularized nature of the villi tissue and its intimacy with surrounding organs and vasculature, the opinion of a multidisciplinary team is very important and necessary for selecting a suitable treatment program. Surgery is the mainstay in REP management, including laparoscopy and laparotomy. For women with stable haemodynamics, laparoscopic surgery is generally preferred over laparotomic surgery with advantage of shorter operative time and reduced blood loss. However, because REPs are often located alongside retroperitoneal great vessels, laparoscopic resection would be a great challenge. Otherwise, the choice of surgical approach is also related to the experience of the surgeon. Ferland et al. [9] had an attempt of robot-assisted laparoscopic removal of the REP mass implanted deeply in the right obturator fossa and obtained a good prognosis. Before attempting laparoscopic management, radiological examinations such as MRI, color Doppler ultrasonography may be necessary to elucidate the vascular supply of the pregnancy mass and exclude the infiltration of large retroperitoneal vascular, especially in more advanced gestations [18, 36]. Any gynecologist attempting such a procedure should be well-trained, have a thorough knowledge of the retroperitoneal anatomy, and be ready to convert to laparotomy in case of intraoperative complications or uncontrollable bleeding. Close cooperation with an abdominal surgeon and/or an interventional radiologist may prove invaluable to safely carry out these procedures. During the operation, complete resection of REP lesion is the first choice but not always the best, especially when the trophoblastic tissue invades surrounding organs or tissues. Singh Y et al. [39] suggested that the placenta should be preserved locally to avoid bleeding and organ damage caused by stripping, but the disadvantage was that the risk of postoperative infection, secondary bleeding and even trophoblastic disease increased.
Medical management might be a choice for a proportion of patients. Among the 6 cases of systemic treatment with MTX, 3 cases (including our case) chose such medical treatment after diagnosis of REP for fear of vascular injury and massive intraoperative hemorrhage [19, 37], whereas 2 cases were given intramuscular MTX due to misdiagnosis of adnexal ectopic pregnancy and choriocarcinoma, respectively [14, 21], and the other one was given after surgical resection of REP lesion [20]. In our case, ultrasound-guided local injection of potassium chloride solution into gestation sac was combined with systemic MTX in order to reduce embryonic activity. Zhang et al. [29] reported one patient treated with MTX and selective arterial embolization therapy. Unfortunately, all of the 6 cases were finally treated with retroperitoneal pregnancy resection due to treatment failure. Several factors may be responsible for the failure of systemic methotrexate treatment for REP, such as higher blood β-hCG levels, more advanced gestations, and presence of ectopic viable embryo. Remarkably, Huang et al. [30] reported 2 cases of REP who were successfully by CT-guided paracentesis and local MTX injection in the gestational sac. Although surgery is avoided, this method was time consuming for normalization of hCG levels.
MTX can also be used in combination with surgery. Ansong et al. [40] suggested that compared with operation alone, operation combined with MTX (i.m. 50 mg/m2) for abdominal pregnancy could significantly reduce bleeding and shorten the hospitalization time. Therefore, two cases underwent local MTX injection in gestational sac implantation site during the operation, for purpose of killing trophoblast cells, decreasing β-hCG, and reducing relevant complications [32, 36].
There were several limitations existing in our study. Because of the rarity of REP, the number of cases was small. Though reviewed all the included cases in detail, we still can’t figure out a definitive consensus or guideline for the management of REP. Through the case reported here, we emphasize the cooperation of a multidisciplinary team in clinical practice, and a treatment consensus is best devised via input from gynecologists, vascular surgeons, radiologists, interventional physicians, pathologists, and the patient. Besides, only English literature published in PubMed database was included in our study. Many cases reported in other languages or databases must have been missed.
In conclusion, REP is exceedingly rare and its pathogenesis is still unelucidated currently. Due to the non-specific clinical manifestations and complex pregnancy site, REP requires a high index of suspicion to reach a timely diagnosis and management. Abdominal ultrasound, CT and MRI are extremely important in the diagnosis and localization of REP. Although successful conservative treatment has been reported, surgery is still the mainstay in REP management. Given the propensity of REPs to implant alongside great vessels, a multidisciplinary approach and adequate preparation are essential to make a suitable surgical plan to alleviate life-threatening complications.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the patient for her permission to present this case report to sensitize practitioners. The authors also thank all the medical staff who participated in the diagnosis and treatment of this patient.

Declarations

This paper was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. The patient described in this case report provided informed consent.
Written consent has been obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Marion L, Meeks G. Ectopic Pregnancy: History, Incidence, Epidemiology, and Risk Factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55(2):376–86.CrossRef Marion L, Meeks G. Ectopic Pregnancy: History, Incidence, Epidemiology, and Risk Factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55(2):376–86.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Poole A, Haas D, Magann EF. Early abdominal ectopic pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;74(4):249–60.CrossRef Poole A, Haas D, Magann EF. Early abdominal ectopic pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;74(4):249–60.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat OuYang Z, Wei S, Wu J, Wan Z, Zhang M, Zhong B. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: A literature review of reported cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;259:113–8.CrossRef OuYang Z, Wei S, Wu J, Wan Z, Zhang M, Zhong B. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: A literature review of reported cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;259:113–8.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hall J, Harris M, Levy R, Walrond E. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1973;80:92–4.CrossRef Hall J, Harris M, Levy R, Walrond E. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1973;80:92–4.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sotus P. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy a case report. JAMA. 1977;238(13):1363–4.CrossRef Sotus P. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy a case report. JAMA. 1977;238(13):1363–4.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Studdiford W. Primary peritoneal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1942;44(3):487–91.CrossRef Studdiford W. Primary peritoneal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1942;44(3):487–91.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Shen L, Fu J, Huang W, Zhu H, Wang Q, Yang S, Wu T. Interventions for non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:CD011174. Shen L, Fu J, Huang W, Zhu H, Wang Q, Yang S, Wu T. Interventions for non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:CD011174.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Eisner SM, Ebert AD, David M. Rare Ectopic Pregnancies - A Literature Review for the Period 2007–2019 on Locations Outside the Uterus and Fallopian Tubes. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020;80(7):686–701. Eisner SM, Ebert AD, David M. Rare Ectopic Pregnancies - A Literature Review for the Period 2007–2019 on Locations Outside the Uterus and Fallopian Tubes. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020;80(7):686–701.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferland R, Chadwick D, O’Brien J, Granai C. An ectopic pregnancy in the upper retroperitoneum following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:544–6.PubMed Ferland R, Chadwick D, O’Brien J, Granai C. An ectopic pregnancy in the upper retroperitoneum following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:544–6.PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Dmowski W, Rana N, Ding J, Wu W. Retroperitoneal Subpancreatic Ectopic Pregnancy Following In Vitro Fertilization in a Patient with Previous Bilateral Salpingectomy: How Did It Get There? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(2):90–3.CrossRef Dmowski W, Rana N, Ding J, Wu W. Retroperitoneal Subpancreatic Ectopic Pregnancy Following In Vitro Fertilization in a Patient with Previous Bilateral Salpingectomy: How Did It Get There? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(2):90–3.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Reid F, Steel M. An exceptionally rare ectopic pregnancy. BJOG. 2003;110:222–3.CrossRef Reid F, Steel M. An exceptionally rare ectopic pregnancy. BJOG. 2003;110:222–3.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee J, Sohn K, Jung H. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(5):1600–1.CrossRef Lee J, Sohn K, Jung H. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(5):1600–1.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Meire I, van Heusden A, Roukema MS, Niezen RA, Dhont M. A retroperitoneal pregnancy of an anencephalic fetus. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27(5):518–9.CrossRef Meire I, van Heusden A, Roukema MS, Niezen RA, Dhont M. A retroperitoneal pregnancy of an anencephalic fetus. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27(5):518–9.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Iwama H, Tsutsumi S, Igarashi H, Takahashi K, Nakahara K, Kurachi H. A case of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy following IVF-ET in a patient with previous bilateral salpingectomy. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25(1):33–6.CrossRef Iwama H, Tsutsumi S, Igarashi H, Takahashi K, Nakahara K, Kurachi H. A case of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy following IVF-ET in a patient with previous bilateral salpingectomy. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25(1):33–6.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Chang YL, Ko PC, Yen CF. Retroperitoneal abdominal pregnancy at left paracolic sulcus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(6):660–1.CrossRef Chang YL, Ko PC, Yen CF. Retroperitoneal abdominal pregnancy at left paracolic sulcus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(6):660–1.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lin J, Liu Q, Ju Y, Guan Q, Wu Y, Zheng N. Primary_obturator_foramen_pregnancy: a case report. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008;121(14):1328–30.CrossRef Lin J, Liu Q, Ju Y, Guan Q, Wu Y, Zheng N. Primary_obturator_foramen_pregnancy: a case report. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008;121(14):1328–30.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bae S, Kim C, Kim K, Hwang I, Choi Y, Lee M, Cho B, Kang Y, Park J. Laparoscopic treatment of early retroperitoneal abdominal pregnancy implanted on inferior vena cava. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19(4):e156-158.CrossRef Bae S, Kim C, Kim K, Hwang I, Choi Y, Lee M, Cho B, Kang Y, Park J. Laparoscopic treatment of early retroperitoneal abdominal pregnancy implanted on inferior vena cava. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19(4):e156-158.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Persson J, Reynisson P, Masback A, Epstein E, Saldeen P. Histopathology indicates lymphatic spread of a pelvic retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy removed by robot-assisted laparoscopy with temporary occlusion of the blood supply. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(6):835–9.CrossRef Persson J, Reynisson P, Masback A, Epstein E, Saldeen P. Histopathology indicates lymphatic spread of a pelvic retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy removed by robot-assisted laparoscopy with temporary occlusion of the blood supply. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(6):835–9.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Okorie CO. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: is there any place for non-surgical treatment with methotrexate? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(5):1133–6.CrossRef Okorie CO. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: is there any place for non-surgical treatment with methotrexate? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(5):1133–6.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Martinez-Varea A, Hidalgo-Mora JJ, Paya V, Morcillo I, Martin E, Pellicer A. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2433-e2431-2433.CrossRef Martinez-Varea A, Hidalgo-Mora JJ, Paya V, Morcillo I, Martin E, Pellicer A. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2433-e2431-2433.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Jiang W, Lv S, Sun L, Singer G, Xu C, Lu X. Diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;77(4):205–10.CrossRef Jiang W, Lv S, Sun L, Singer G, Xu C, Lu X. Diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;77(4):205–10.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Liang C, Li X, Zhao B, Du Y, Xu S. Demonstration of the route of embryo migration in retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy using contrast-enhanced computed tomography. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(3):849–52.CrossRef Liang C, Li X, Zhao B, Du Y, Xu S. Demonstration of the route of embryo migration in retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy using contrast-enhanced computed tomography. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(3):849–52.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Protopapas A, Akrivos N, Athanasiou S, Chatzipapas I, Domali A, Loutradis D. Ultrasound-assisted intraoperative localization and laparoscopic management of a previously missed unruptured retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy. Gynecol Surg. 2014;11(3):207–11.CrossRef Protopapas A, Akrivos N, Athanasiou S, Chatzipapas I, Domali A, Loutradis D. Ultrasound-assisted intraoperative localization and laparoscopic management of a previously missed unruptured retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy. Gynecol Surg. 2014;11(3):207–11.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Ouassour S, Filali AA, Raiss M, Bezad R, Tazi Z, Alami MH, Bennani J, Dafiri R. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Therapeutic Challenges. Case Rep Surg. 2017;2017:9871865.PubMedPubMedCentral Ouassour S, Filali AA, Raiss M, Bezad R, Tazi Z, Alami MH, Bennani J, Dafiri R. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Therapeutic Challenges. Case Rep Surg. 2017;2017:9871865.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang M, Cidan L, Zhang D. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):358.CrossRef Yang M, Cidan L, Zhang D. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):358.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Pak J, Durfee J, Pedro L, Osborne A, Larkins-Pettigrew M. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(6):1491–3.CrossRef Pak J, Durfee J, Pedro L, Osborne A, Larkins-Pettigrew M. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(6):1491–3.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang Y, Liu Z, Song L, Liu H, Li L, Meng Y. Diagnosis and surgical therapy of the retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: A case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018;49:21–4.CrossRef Yang Y, Liu Z, Song L, Liu H, Li L, Meng Y. Diagnosis and surgical therapy of the retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: A case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018;49:21–4.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Velemínský M, Štěpánek O, Koznar P, Michal M, Mainzerová P, Štiková Z. A rare case of ectopic pregnancy - retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2018;39(3):156–8.PubMed Velemínský M, Štěpánek O, Koznar P, Michal M, Mainzerová P, Štiková Z. A rare case of ectopic pregnancy - retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2018;39(3):156–8.PubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang M, Qin LL. A case of retroperitoneal para-aortic ectopic pregnancy detected by sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 2018;46(6):412–4.CrossRef Zhang M, Qin LL. A case of retroperitoneal para-aortic ectopic pregnancy detected by sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 2018;46(6):412–4.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang X, Zhong R, Tan X, Zeng L, Jiang K, Mei S, Ye Z, Luo X. Conservative management of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy by computed tomographic-guided methotrexate injection in the gestational sac: 2 Case Reports and Literature Review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(6):1187–92.CrossRef Huang X, Zhong R, Tan X, Zeng L, Jiang K, Mei S, Ye Z, Luo X. Conservative management of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy by computed tomographic-guided methotrexate injection in the gestational sac: 2 Case Reports and Literature Review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(6):1187–92.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu Q, Zhang Z, Zhang Z. Laparoscopic Management of Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(3):405–6.CrossRef Lu Q, Zhang Z, Zhang Z. Laparoscopic Management of Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(3):405–6.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang X, Ma D, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Bi X, Wu X, Fan J. Rare heterotopic pregnancy after frozen embryo transfer: a case report and literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):542.CrossRef Wang X, Ma D, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Bi X, Wu X, Fan J. Rare heterotopic pregnancy after frozen embryo transfer: a case report and literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):542.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Le MT, Huynh MH, Cao CH, Hoang YM, Le KC, Dang VQ. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in patient with previous bilateral salpingectomy: A case report. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;150(3):418–9.CrossRef Le MT, Huynh MH, Cao CH, Hoang YM, Le KC, Dang VQ. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in patient with previous bilateral salpingectomy: A case report. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;150(3):418–9.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Hou Q, Xin L, Jian L, Pan J, Chen L, Song W. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: A case report and literature review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(3):1186–90.CrossRef Hou Q, Xin L, Jian L, Pan J, Chen L, Song W. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: A case report and literature review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(3):1186–90.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Anh ND, Hai NX, Ha NT, Toan NK, Thuong PH, Duc NM. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: A case report of a patient with bilateral salpingectomy. Radiol Case Rep. 2022;17(3):721–4.CrossRef Anh ND, Hai NX, Ha NT, Toan NK, Thuong PH, Duc NM. Retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: A case report of a patient with bilateral salpingectomy. Radiol Case Rep. 2022;17(3):721–4.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Wen X, Yan X, Zhang Q, Dong P, Zhou L, Wang S. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy: A Case Report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(9):1662–5.CrossRef Wen X, Yan X, Zhang Q, Dong P, Zhou L, Wang S. Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy: A Case Report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(9):1662–5.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Di Lorenzo G, Romano F, Mirenda G, Cracco F, Buonomo F, Stabile G, Facchin S, Ricci G. “Nerve-sparing” laparoscopic treatment of parametrial ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(4):1197–9.CrossRef Di Lorenzo G, Romano F, Mirenda G, Cracco F, Buonomo F, Stabile G, Facchin S, Ricci G. “Nerve-sparing” laparoscopic treatment of parametrial ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(4):1197–9.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Strandell A, Thorburn J, Hamberger L. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(2):282–6.CrossRef Strandell A, Thorburn J, Hamberger L. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(2):282–6.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh Y, Singh SK, Ganguly M, Singh S, Kumar P. Secondary abdominal pregnancy. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(2):186–8.CrossRef Singh Y, Singh SK, Ganguly M, Singh S, Kumar P. Secondary abdominal pregnancy. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(2):186–8.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Ansong E, Illahi G, Shen L, Wu X. Analyzing the clinical significance of postoperative methotrexate in the management of early abdominal pregnancy: analysis of 10 cases. Ginekol Pol. 2019;90(8):438–43.CrossRef Ansong E, Illahi G, Shen L, Wu X. Analyzing the clinical significance of postoperative methotrexate in the management of early abdominal pregnancy: analysis of 10 cases. Ginekol Pol. 2019;90(8):438–43.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Multidisciplinary treatment of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy: a case report and literature review
verfasst von
Hainan Xu
Dali Cheng
Qing Yang
Dandan Wang
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2022
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Ausgabe 1/2022
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04799-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

16.05.2024 Zielgerichtete Therapie Nachrichten

Trastuzumab deruxtecan scheint auch jenseits von Lungenkrebs gut gegen solide Tumoren mit HER2-Mutationen zu wirken. Dafür sprechen die Daten einer offenen Pan-Tumor-Studie.

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

15.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Frauen mit lokalem oder metastasiertem Brustkrebs, die Statine einnehmen, haben eine niedrigere krebsspezifische Mortalität als Patientinnen, die dies nicht tun, legen neue Daten aus den USA nahe.

S3-Leitlinie zur unkomplizierten Zystitis: Auf Antibiotika verzichten?

15.05.2024 Harnwegsinfektionen Nachrichten

Welche Antibiotika darf man bei unkomplizierter Zystitis verwenden und wovon sollte man die Finger lassen? Welche pflanzlichen Präparate können helfen? Was taugt der zugelassene Impfstoff? Antworten vom Koordinator der frisch überarbeiteten S3-Leitlinie, Prof. Florian Wagenlehner.

Gestationsdiabetes: In der zweiten Schwangerschaft folgenreicher als in der ersten

13.05.2024 Gestationsdiabetes Nachrichten

Das Risiko, nach einem Gestationsdiabetes einen Typ-2-Diabetes zu entwickeln, hängt nicht nur von der Zahl, sondern auch von der Reihenfolge der betroffenen Schwangerschaften ab.

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.