Abstract
Aim:
The purpose of this review is to systematically review all the reported cases and case series of caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) managed expectantly without any intervention in order to understand the outcomes of pregnancy which will guide clinicians and patients in making treatment choices.
Methods:
An electronic search on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases and a manual search from references of the articles were performed. Studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted for various outcomes of pregnancy and the quality of the reports was assessed using a modified Delphi technique.
Results:
A total of 56 cases of CSP from 11 reports were included in the review, including 44 cases with foetal cardiac activity. Live births were achieved in 73% of cases with a quarter of them born before 34 weeks. Hysterectomy rates were 70%. In 12/44 (27%) of cases pregnancies were lost due to complications before 24 weeks. Most (67%) of the CSPs with no foetal cardiac activities resolved on expectant management and the remaining required intervention for bleeding.
Conclusions:
Caution should be exercised when choosing expectant management in cases of viable CSPs, and if chosen, the patient should be counselled adequately for possible outcomes including loss of pregnancy and hysterectomy. Expectant management is acceptable in CSPs with no foetal cardiac activity. There is a need for prospective research on this topic with adequate reporting on possible prognostic markers, as well as a need to improve on the techniques to prevent loss of fertility during delivery.
Author’s statement
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Material and methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The research related to human subject use has complied with all the relevant national regulations, and institutional policies, and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.
References
[1] Jayaram PM, Okunoye GO, Konje J. Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: diagnostic challenges and management options. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;19:13–20.10.1111/tog.12355Search in Google Scholar
[2] Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;114:253–63.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01237.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[3] Ballas J, Pretorius D, Hull AD, Resnik R, Ramos GA. Identifying sonographic markers for placenta accreta in the first trimester. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:1835–41.10.7863/jum.2012.31.11.1835Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[4] Moschos E, Wells CE, Twickler DM. Biometric sonographic findings of abnormally adherent trophoblastic implantations on caesarean delivery scars. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:475–81.10.7863/ultra.33.3.475Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[5] Peng KW, Lei Z, Xiao TH, Jia FG, Zhong WX, Gao Y, et al. First trimester caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy evaluation using MRI. Clin Radiol. 2014;69:123–9.10.1016/j.crad.2013.07.021Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[6] Cheng LY, Wang CB, Chu LC, Tseng CW, Kung FT. Outcomes of primary surgical evacuation during the first trimester in different types of implantation in women with caesarean scar pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1085–90.e2.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[7] Zhang H, Huang J, Wu X, Fan H, Li H, Gao T. Clinical classification and treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43:653–61.10.1111/jog.13267Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[8] Cali G, Forlani F, Timor-Trisch I, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Minneci G, D’Antonio F. Natural history of caesarean scar pregnancy on prenatal ultrasound: the cross-over sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50:100–4.10.1002/uog.16216Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[9] Cali G, Forlani F, Minneci G, Foti F, Di Liberto S, Familiari A, et al. First trimester prediction of surgical outcome in abnormal invasive placenta using the cross-over sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb 24. doi: 10.1002/uog.17440. [Epub ahead of print].Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[10] Moga C, Guo B, Schopflocher D, Harstall C. Development of a quality appraisal tool for tool for case series studies using a modified Delphi technique. Alberta, Canada: Institute of Health Economics; 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Zosmer N, Fuller J, Shaikh H, Johns J, Ross JA. Natural history of early first-trimester pregnancies implanted in Caesarean scars. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:367–75.10.1002/uog.14775Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] Timor-Tritsch IE, Khatib N, Monteagudo A, Ramos J, Berg R, Kovacs S. Caesarean scar pregnancies: experience of 60 cases. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:601–10.10.7863/ultra.34.4.601Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Michaels AY, Washburn EE, Pocius KD, Benson CB, Doubilet PM, Carusi DA. Outcome of caesarean scar pregnancies diagnosed sonographically in the first trimester. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:595–9.10.7863/ultra.34.4.595Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[14] Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, Vintzileos A, Viscarello R, Al-Khan A, et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44:346–53.10.1002/uog.13426Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[15] Abraham RJ, Weston MJ. Expectant management of a caesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32:695–6.10.3109/01443615.2012.703263Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[16] Wong HS, Zuccollo J, Tait J, Pringle KC. Placenta accreta in the first trimester of pregnancy: sonographic findings. J Clin Ultrasound. 2009;37:100–3.10.1002/jcu.20487Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Ben Nagi J, Helmy S, Ofili-Yebovi D, Yazbek J, Sawyer E, Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes of women with a previous history of Caesarean scar ectopic pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2012–5.10.1093/humrep/dem078Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] El-Matary A, Akinlade R, Jolaoso A. Caesarean scar pregnancy with expectant management to full term. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:624–5.10.1080/01443610701546334Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Smith A, Ash A, Maxwell D. Sonographic diagnosis of caesarean scar pregnancy at 16 weeks. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35:212–5.10.1002/jcu.20270Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[20] Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Salim R, Elson CJ. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment caesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21:220–7.10.1002/uog.56Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[21] Herman A, Weinraub Z, Avrech O, Maymon R, Ron-El R, Bukovsky Y. Follow up and outcome of isthmic pregnancy located in a previous caesarean section scar. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:839–41.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb10855.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[22] Al-Hashimi S, Maiti S, Macfoy D. Successful conservative management of ectopic pregnancy in caesarean section scar. BMJ Case Rep. 2012, doi: 10.1136/bcr-2012-006925.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[23] Liu H, Leng J, Shi H, Lang J. Expectant treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: two case reports and a glimpse at the natural courses. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;282:455–8.10.1007/s00404-010-1391-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[24] Yan CM. A report of four cases of caesarean scar pregnancy in a period of 12 months. Hong Kong Med J. 2007;13:141–3.Search in Google Scholar
[25] Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, Schneider D, Vaknin Z, Herman A, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in caesarean section scars: the 8 year experience of one medical centre. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:278–84.10.1093/humrep/deh060Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[26] Wang YJ, Zhai Y, Zhang ZY. Clinical features and outcome of caesarean scar pregnancy. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2017;97:986–90.Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
