比较子宫动脉化疗栓塞术和子宫动脉栓塞术治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠（cesarean scar pregnancy，CSP）的疗效。

回顾分析山西医科大学第一医院2007年1月—2016年5月收治的诊断明确的CSP患者71例，分为A组33例和B组38例，A组行子宫动脉化疗栓塞术后行清宫术，B组行子宫动脉栓塞术后行清宫术。比较2组患者清宫过程的出血量、β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素（HCG）值下降至正常的时间及住院时间。

2组患者的治疗成功率为100%，清宫过程中的出血量：A组为（40±30）ml，B组为（50±20）ml，差别无统计学意义。β-HCG值下降至正常的时间：A组为（16±3）d，低于B组的（21±5）d，差别有统计学意义。住院时间：A组为（11±3）d，低于B组的（13.5±4.5）d，差别有统计学意义。

子宫动脉化疗栓塞术和子宫动脉栓塞术治疗CSP的成功率、清宫过程的出血量无明显差别，但子宫动脉化疗栓塞术能缩短患者的β-HCG值下降至正常的时间和住院时间。

This study compares the clinical effect of uterine artery chemoembolization (UACE) and uterine artery embolization (UAE) in treating cesarean scar pregnancy.

71 patients who were diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) at the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University between January 2007 and May 2016 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into two groups: Group A (33) and Group B (38). Group A received UACE prior to curettage 24-48 hours later while Group B received UAE prior to curettage 24-48 hours later. The hemorrhage volume during the curettage, the time for β-HCG reduced to normal and hospital stays were compared between the two groups.

Both groups received satisfactory results. The bleeding during the curettage was recorded as - Group A (40±30) ml, Group B (50±20) ml, thus, there was no significant statistical difference. The time for β-HCG reduced to normal: Group A (16±3) d was less than Group B, which was (21±5 ) d, there was a statistical difference . Hospital stays: Group A (11±3) d also had less stays than Group B (13.5±4.5) d, as showed a statistical difference.

UACE and UAE did not have statistical significance in terms of bleeding during curettage and success rate, however, UACE can shorten the time of β-HCG reduced to normal and hospital stays.