AUTHOR=Rui Tan , Wei He , Huaibo Jing , Han Mou , Cheung Kenneth C. P. , Yang Chai 

TITLE=Comparation of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion versus uterine artery embolization in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Medicine

VOLUME=11

YEAR=2024

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1472239

DOI=10.3389/fmed.2024.1472239

ISSN=2296-858X

ABSTRACT=<sec id="sec1"><title>Study objective</title><p>This study is to uncover the advantages of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion in the uterine curettage treatment for patients with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).</p></sec><sec id="sec2"><title>Methods</title><p>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 (<italic>n</italic> = 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).</p></sec><sec id="sec3"><title>Results</title><p>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, <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01), (type III: (21.2 ± 7.2)s vs. (509.8 ± 164.2)s, <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01), the surface dose in radiation: (type II: (1.9 ± 0.7)mGy vs. (248.3 ± 85.9)mGy, <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01), (type III: (2.1 ± 0.8)mGy vs.(252.0 ± 74.9)mGy, <italic>p</italic> &lt; 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, <italic>p</italic> = 0.113), (type III:50.0 (17.5,162.5)ml vs. 50.0 (22.5, 72.5)ml, <italic>p</italic> = 0.623), the operation time of the uterine curettage:(type II: (54.8 ± 19.4)min vs.(43.9 ± 21.9)min, <italic>p</italic> = 0.071), (type III: (65.2 ± 50.4)min vs.(52.8 ± 20.1)min, <italic>p</italic> = 0.426), LOS: (type II:(5.4 ± 1.7)d vs.(5.4 ± 1.2)d, <italic>p</italic> = 0.816), (type III:(5.8 ± 2.4)d vs. (7.0 ± 1.7)d, <italic>p</italic> = 0.161). The follow-up was more than 3 months. No adverse reaction in the experimental group and 6 patients in the control group presented menstrual volume decrease.</p></sec><sec id="sec4"><title>Conclusion</title><p>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.</p></sec>