切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华介入放射学电子杂志

中华介入放射学电子杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (03) : 35 -38. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2014.03.010

所属专题： 文献；

血管介入

子宫动脉化疗栓塞后清宫术与开腹病灶清除术治疗瘢痕妊娠的疗效比较
周慷1, 李晓光1,†(), 金征宇1, 石海峰1, 王志伟1   
  1. 1. 100730　北京协和医院放射科
  • 收稿日期:2013-06-09 出版日期:2014-08-01
  • 通信作者: 李晓光

Treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: Comparison between dilation and curettage after uterine artery chemoembolization with laparotomy lesion excision

kang Zhou1, Xiaoguang Li1,†(), Zhengyu Jin1, Haifeng Shi1, Zhiwei Wang1   

  1. 1. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing 100730, China
  • Received:2013-06-09 Published:2014-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Xiaoguang Li
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Li Xiaoguang, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

周慷, 李晓光, 金征宇, 石海峰, 王志伟. 子宫动脉化疗栓塞后清宫术与开腹病灶清除术治疗瘢痕妊娠的疗效比较[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2014, 02(03): 35-38.

kang Zhou, Xiaoguang Li, Zhengyu Jin, Haifeng Shi, Zhiwei Wang. Treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: Comparison between dilation and curettage after uterine artery chemoembolization with laparotomy lesion excision[J]. Chinese Journal of Interventional Radiology(Electronic Edition), 2014, 02(03): 35-38.

目的

比较子宫动脉化疗栓塞后清宫术与开腹病灶清除术治疗瘢痕妊娠的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2009年1月至2012年1月北京协和医院收治的瘢痕妊娠（cesarean scar pregnancy, CSP）患者77例，分为两组：A组22例，直接行开腹瘢痕妊娠病灶清除术，B组55例，UACE后24~72小时行清宫术。比较两组患者的术中出血量、手术时间、血β-hCG降至正常时间、住院时间、并发症、是否需要二次治疗和术后月经情况等数据之间的差异。

结果

两组患者均不需子宫切除术。A组有1例术中发生大出血，急诊行子宫动脉栓塞，二次治疗率为5%；B组清宫术中子宫瘢痕处穿孔行修补术1例、出血活跃转行开腹瘢痕病灶清除术1例、清宫后血β-hCG下降不满意3例，其中加用MTX治疗2例，再次清宫1例；二次治疗率为9%。两组患者手术时间有显著性差异[A组(114.45±34.32) min，B组(35.35±20.21) min，P<0.01]；术中出血量比较：[A组（186.53±43.30）ml显著多于B组（52.36±28.04）ml，P <0.01]；两组患者β-hCG下降至正常时间有显著性差异[A组(15.32±3.21)天，B组(24.11±7.32)天，P <0.01]。住院时间两组差异显著[(19.34±5.72)天VS (13.46±4.87)天，P <0.01]。所有患者均在术后半年内恢复正常月经周期。

结论

子宫动脉化疗栓塞后清宫和开腹子宫瘢痕病灶清除治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠均安全有效。子宫动脉化疗栓塞后清宫术创伤小、手术时间短、术中出血量少、住院时间短，且对于急诊大出血的患者尤为适用。

关键词: 子宫瘢痕妊娠, 清宫术, 子宫动脉化疗栓塞术, 开腹瘢痕妊娠病灶清除术, 甲氨蝶呤
Objective

Compare the clinical outcomes of dilation and curettage (D&C) after uterine artery chemoembolization (UACE) and laparotomy lesion excision for treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.

Methods

77 Patients with cesarean scar pregnancy between January 2009 and January 2012 were enrolled for retrospective analyses. The patients were divided into two groups: 22 patients in group A treated by laparotomy lesion excision; group B included 55 patients, who received UACE 24-72 hours before D&C. The main outcome measures were operation time, blood loss, time for β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG) to decline to normal values, the duration of hospital stay, rate of secondary treatment, complications and menstrual situation after operation.

Results

None of the 77 patients received hysterectomy. In group A, 1 patient had to receive uterine artery embolization due to massive hemorrhage. The rate of secondary treatment was 5% in group A. In group B, 1 patient received perforation repair, 1 received laparotomy lesion excision due to active bleeding. Theβ-hCG level persisted in 3 patients, 2 of them received MTX injection and 1 received D&C again. The rate of secondary treatment was 9% in group B. The operation time in group B was less than that in group A (35.35±20.21) min versus (114.45±34.32) min, P <0.01). The mean blood loss in group B was lower than that in group A (52.36±28.04) ml versus (186.53±43.30)ml, P<0.01). The average time for β-hCG to decline to normal had significant different between two groups (15.32±3.21)d in group A versus (24.11±7.32) d in group B, P <0.01). The duration of hospital stay of group B was less than that of group A(13.46±4.87) days versus (19.34±5.72) days, P<0.01). All patients regained normal menstruation within half a year.

Conclusions

D&C after UACE and laparotomy lesion excision are both safe and effective treatments for CSP. D&C after UACE is minimally invasive, with less operation time, less duration of hospital stay and less blood loss in operation. Especially, UACE could provide remarkable clinic outcomes for the patients with acute vaginal bleeding.

Key words: Cesarean scar pregnancy, Dilation and curettage, Uterine artery chemoembolization, Laparotomy lesion excision, Methotrexate.
表1 两组病人资料对比
资料 A组 B组 P值
年龄（年） 32.32±4.31 33.74±4.34 >0.05
血β-HCG（mIU/ml） 5325.25±2541.01 6541.36±3921.08 >0.05
既往孕产次数 4.15±1.31 4.21±1.42 >0.05
间隔时间（年） 6.42±3.45 6.27±3.52 >0.05
表2 两组病人治疗临床情况对比
? A组 B组 P值
手术时间（min） 114.45±34.32 35.35±20.21 <0.01
术中出血量（ml） 186.53±43.30 52.36±28.04 <0.01
血β-hCG降至正常时间（天） 15.32±3.21 24.11±7.32 <0.01
住院时间（天） 19.34±5.72 13.46±4.87 <0.01
1
Larsen JV,Solomon MH. Pregnancy in a uterine scar sacculus—anunusual cause of postabortal haemorrhage. S Afr Med J 1978;53:142-3.
2
Seow KM,Huang LW,Lin YH, et a1. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 23(3):247-253.
3
McKenna DA,Poder L,Goldman M, et al. Role of sonography in the recognition, assessment, and treatment of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2008, 27: 779-783.
4
Maymon R,Halperin R,Mendlovic S, et al. Ectopic pregnancies in a Caesarean scar: review of the medical approach to an iatrogenic complication[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2004, 10: 515-523.
5
Dilbaz S,Atasay B,Bilgie S, et al. A case of conservative management of cervical pregnancy using selective angiographic embolization. [J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2001, 80(1):87.
6
Vial Y,Petignat P,Hohlfeld P. Pregnancy in a Ceasarean Scar[J] .Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol , 2000, 16(6):592-593.
7
Cheng PJ Chueh HY Soong YK. Sonographic diagnosis of a uterine defect in a pregnancy at 6 weeks＇ gestation with a history of curettage. [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003, 21: 501-503.
8
Marcus S,Cheng E,Goff B. Extrauterine pregnancy resulting from early uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:804-5.
9
向阳. 关于剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的分型与治疗方法的选择.中国妇产科临床杂志,2012年11月,第13卷,第6期:401-404.
10
Badawy SZ,Etman A,Singh M, et al. Uterine artery embolization: the role in obstetrics and gynecology. Clin Imaging 2001; 25:288-95.
11
Michael R,Shoshana H, et al. Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancies Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:1373–81.
12
Nawroth F,Foth D,Wllhelm L, et al. Conservative treatment of ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean section scar with m ethotrexate: a case report.[J] Eur J ObstetGynecol Reprod Bio,2001,99(1): 135.
13
Erin L. Hois, BSc, John F. Hibbeln, et al. Ectopic Pregnancy in a Cesarean Section Scar Treated With Intramuscular Methotrexate and Bilateral Uterine Artery Embolization. J Clin Ultrasound 2008, 36:123–127.
14
黄卓敏,古衍,江曼茹等. 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠早期诊断与治疗方法的选择[J] 中国计划生育学杂志, 2012年5月,第20卷,第5期:335-338.
[1] 张曼, 李明庆, 李军苗. 当归四逆汤联合甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 648-652.
[2] 张振华, 侯俊, 赖建铭. 来氟米特联合甲氨蝶呤治疗幼年特发性关节炎的疗效[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(04): 403-407.
[3] 高秀, 尹如铁. 低危型妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤治疗热点[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(02): 125-131.
[4] 肖卓妮, 杨菁, 徐望明. 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠治疗策略的临床疗效及并发症发生情况研究[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(01): 31-38.
[5] 吴晓兰, 郑高明. 宫腔镜在保留剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠患者生育功能中的临床价值[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2015, 11(01): 80-82.
[6] 栾兴龙, 苏峰, 程元星. 长期甲氨蝶呤治疗硫唑嘌呤干预无效型溃疡性结肠炎的临床研究[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2018, 07(02): 141-144.
[7] 薛友余, 王伟, 陶勇, 冯婧. 玻璃体腔注射甲氨蝶呤治疗原发性眼内淋巴瘤的临床研究[J]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(02): 88-93.
[8] 孙雯, 刘世良. 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的处理[J]. 中华产科急救电子杂志, 2016, 05(04): 240-243.
[9] 王建爽, 张海静, 王雪松, 文颖, 周子敬. 不同预处理方式联合超声监测下清宫术治疗外生型CSP的疗效及安全性[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2021, 09(04): 371-375.
[10] 王晓雨, 穆永旭, 张磊. 子宫动脉介入栓塞治疗内生型与外生型子宫瘢痕妊娠的临床效果比较[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2018, 06(03): 209-212.
[11] 吕益忠, 徐文健, 严冬华, 董淑蔷, 马永建, 王艳, 王晓静. 影响子宫动脉栓塞术在剖宫产疤痕妊娠中应用的因素分析[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2018, 06(03): 199-203.
[12] 李奎, 颜国辉, 邹煜. 子宫动脉栓塞与甲氨蝶呤治疗不同MRI分型的剖宫产术后疤痕妊娠的疗效评价[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2017, 05(03): 128-134.
[13] 陈毅, 谢春明, 冯对平, 庞宁东, 杨敏玲. 子宫动脉化疗栓塞术和子宫动脉栓塞术治疗子宫瘢痕妊娠的临床效果比较[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2016, 04(03): 158-161.
[14] 张磊, 穆永旭, 闫瑞强, 刘海艳, 金昌, 吴常生, 董宁. 经血管介入法联合清宫术治疗剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的临床效果观察[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2016, 04(01): 21-23.
[15] 汤斐, 赵云. 子宫动脉介入栓塞合并氨甲喋呤注射在胎盘完全滞留中的应用[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2019, 05(03): 141-146.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号