Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.
Sec. Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1472239

Comparation of Abdominal Aortic Balloon Occlusion versus Uterine Artery Embolization in The Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy

Provisionally accepted
Tan Rui Tan Rui 1*He Wei He Wei 2Jing H. Bo Jing H. Bo 1Mou Han Mou Han 1Chai Yang Chai Yang 3*Kenneth C. Cheung Kenneth C. Cheung 3
  • 1 Department of Interventional Radiology, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, China
  • 2 Department of Radiology, The Hospital Affiliated to Chengdu Office, the Tibet People' Government, Lhasa, China
  • 3 Hong Kong Phenome Research Center, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Study Objective: This study is to uncover the advantages of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion in the uterine curettage treatment for patients with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).To retrospectively analyze the clinical data of eighty patients with CSP after treatment in our hospital from 01/10/2019 to 01/05/2021. The 80 patients were divided into 2 groups: 41 patients were treated with abdominal aortic balloon occlusion and the control group (n = 39) underwent Uterine artery embolization(UAE). The amount of bleeding during the operation, the operation time of the uterine curettage, the X-ray fluoroscopy time under DSA, the surface dose in radiation, the length of hospital stay (LOS), and the postoperative complications were compared between these 2 groups(type Ⅱ and type Ⅲ).Results: All the operations successfully retained the uterus. No balloon-related complications occurred in the experimental group. And in the control group, there were 14 cases of fever and 19 cases of pain after UAE. The fluoroscopy time of experimental group and control group were: (type Ⅱ: (20.3±7.1)s vs (593.7±284.5)s, P<0.01), (type Ⅲ: (21.2±7.2)s vs (509.8±164.2)s, P<0.01), the surface dose in radiation: (type Ⅱ: (1.9±0.7)mGy vs (248.3±85.9)mGy, P<0.01), (type Ⅲ:(2.1±0.8)mGy vs(252.0±74.9)mGy, P<0.01), the amount of bleeding during the operation: (type Ⅱ:30.0(20.0,50.0)ml vs 20.0(10.0,50.0)ml, P=0.113), (type Ⅲ:50.0(17.5,162.5)ml vs 50.0(22.5,72.5)ml, P=0.623), the operation time of the uterine curettage:(type Ⅱ: (54.8±19.4)min vs(43.9±21.9)min, P=0.071), (type Ⅲ: (65.2±50.4)min vs(52.8±20.1)min, P=0.426), LOS: (type Ⅱ:(5.4±1.7)d vs(5.4±1.2)d, P=0.816), (type Ⅲ:(5.8±2.4)d vs (7.0±1.7)d, P=0.161). The follow-up was more than three months. No adverse reaction in the experimental group and 6 patients in the control group presented menstrual volume decrease. Conclusions: No balloon-related complications occurred in the abdominal aortic balloon occlusion and lower radiation exposure for both the operator and patient,. And both abdominal aortic balloon occlusion and UAE can effectively reduce the bleeding during uterine curettage in patients with type Ⅱ and Ⅲ CSP.

    Keywords: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), Abdominal aortic balloon occlusion, Uterine artery embolization (UAE), Uterine curettage, Interventional therapy

    Received: 29 Jul 2024; Accepted: 16 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Rui, Wei, Bo, Han, Yang and Cheung. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Tan Rui, Department of Interventional Radiology, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, China
    Chai Yang, Hong Kong Phenome Research Center, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.