Skip to content
2000
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Background:

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) refers to the phenomenon in which a fertilized egg implants and develops in the scar of the uterus in a woman with a history of cesarean section.

Objective:

The study aimed to explore the differential diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) combined with three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) for CSP.

Methods:

Clinical data of 89 patients with CSP admitted to our hospital from January 2022 to January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Of them, 65 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients underwent 2D US, 3D US, and combined 2D and 3D US imaging. Using the clinical pathological diagnosis as the “gold standard”, the differential diagnostic value of 2D US, 3D US, and 2D US combined with 3D US for CSP was compared.

Results:

The detection rate of CSP using a combined 2D US and 3D US was 98.46%, which was higher than 84.62% and 89.23% achieved with 2D US and 3D US alone, respectively (P<0.05). The pathological results showed that among 65 patients, CSP type I accounted for 24.62%, type II accounted for 55.38%, and type III accounted for 20.00%. The coincidence rate of 2D US combined with 3D US was 98.46%, which was higher than that of 2D US (83.08%) and 3D US 89.23%) alone (P<0.05). The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of 2D US combined with 3D US in diagnosing CSP were higher compared to the two methods alone (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

The combination of 2D US and 3D US can accurately detect and classify CSP, further improving diagnostic efficiency.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056262717231108115309
2024-01-02
2025-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmir/20/1/e15734056262717.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056262717231108115309&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. PędraszewskiP. WlaźlakE. PanekW. SurkontG. Cesarean scar pregnancy – a new challenge for obstetricians.J. Ultrason.20181872566210.15557/JoU.2018.000929844942
    [Google Scholar]
  2. HancerliogullariN. YamanS. AksoyR.T. TokmakA. Does an increased number of cesarean sections result in greater risk for mother and baby in low-risk, late preterm and term deliveries?Pak. J. Med. Sci.2019351101610.12669/pjms.35.1.36430881388
    [Google Scholar]
  3. JiangH. WangL. LiangJ. Uterine compression suture is an effective mode of treatment of postpartum haemorrhage.Pak. J. Med. Sci.202036213113532063946
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ErenH. Canbulat SahinerN. Demirgoz BalM. DissizM. Effects of music during multiple cesarean section delivery.J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak.201828324724910.29271/jcpsp.2018.03.24729544589
    [Google Scholar]
  5. TazionS. HafeezM. ManzoorR. RanaT. Ultrasound predictability of lower uterine segment cesarean section scar thickness.J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak.201828536136410.29271/jcpsp.2018.05.36129690964
    [Google Scholar]
  6. LiuD. YangM. WuQ. Application of ultrasonography in the diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.Clin. Chim. Acta201848629129710.1016/j.cca.2018.08.01230102898
    [Google Scholar]
  7. PascualM.A. HereterL. GrauperaB. TresserraF. Fernandez-CidM. SimonM. Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound diagnosis and conservative treatment of ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean section scar.Fertil. Steril.2007883706.e5706.e710.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.18317416367
    [Google Scholar]
  8. PristavuA. VinturacheA. MihalceanuE. PintilieR. OnofriescuM. SocolovD. Combination of medical and surgical management in successful treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: A case report series.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth202020161710.1186/s12884‑020‑03237‑833050911
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ShiL. HuangL. LiuL. YangX. YaoD. ChenD. XiongJ. DuanJ. Diagnostic value of transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound combined with color Doppler ultrasound for early cesarean scar pregnancy.Ann. Palliat. Med.20211010104861049410.21037/apm‑21‑220834763495
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HuoS. ShenL. JuY. LiuK. LiuW. Treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy: 11-year experience at a medical center.J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med.2023361216281810.1080/14767058.2022.216281836597830
    [Google Scholar]
  11. SchmidtS.A.J. LoS. HollesteinL.M. Research techniques made simple: Sample size estimation and power calculation.J. Invest. Dermatol.201813881678168210.1016/j.jid.2018.06.16530032783
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DreverN. PetersenS.G. BertoloneJ. JanssensS. Reply to “Caesarean scar pregnancy: Look at a leopard through a tube”.Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.2021611E4E510.1111/ajo.1327933523476
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MolloA. BattaglieseA. MascoloM. RaffoneA. TravaglinoA. D’ArmientoM. InsabatoL. ZulloF. Hysteroscopic intact removal of angular and caesarean scar pregnancy: A novel and markedly less invasive surgical treatment.Gynecol. Obstet. Invest.2021861-2556210.1159/00051051033302286
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LuoY. PanH. YangL. LinN. FanZ. ChenW. Comparing two-dimensional ultrasonography with three-dimensional ultrasonography and MRI for the levator ani defects grading.Sci. Rep.2022121917510.1038/s41598‑022‑13427‑335655000
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HeJ. CuiL. ChenT. LyuX. YuJ. GuoW. WangD. QinX. ZhaoY. ZhangS. Study on multiplanar measurements of infant hips with three‐dimensional ultrasonography.J. Clin. Ultrasound202250563964510.1002/jcu.2318535285518
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LiuZ. ShiZ. WeiY. DaiQ. LiuX. Lacunar-like changes of the chorion: can it be a first-trimester ultrasound sign in predicting worse clinical outcome in cesarean scar pregnancy termination?J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med.202134142355236210.1080/14767058.2021.188891433685328
    [Google Scholar]
  17. CaoL. QianZ. HuangL. Comparison of D&C and hysteroscopy after UAE in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.Medicine20221013e2860710.1097/MD.000000000002860735060530
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ChuehH.Y. PaiA.H.Y. SuY.Y. HsuC.C. ChangF.Y. YenC.F. Hysteroscopic removal, with or without laparoscopic assistance, of first-trimester cesarean scar pregnancy.Fertil. Steril.2022117364364510.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.11.02735219475
    [Google Scholar]
  19. XiaoX. DingR. PengL. LiuH. ZhuY. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy.Medicine202110048e2753210.1097/MD.000000000002753235049166
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ZhouJ. XiongY. RenY. ZhangY. LiX. YanY. Three‐dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography indicates that increased placental blood perfusion during the third trimester is associated with the risk of macrosomia at birth.J. Clin. Ultrasound2021491121910.1002/jcu.2291232964472
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TangQ. QinY. ZhouQ. TangJ. ZhouQ. QiaoJ. ShuC. DaiX. ZhangJ. Hysteroscopic treatment and reproductive outcomes in cesarean scar pregnancy: experience at a single institution.Fertil. Steril.202111661559156610.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.06.01534301391
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MaizN. TajadaM. RodríguezM.Á. IrasarriA. MolinaF.S. TubauA. BurgosJ. AlonsoI. PlasenciaW. RodóC. PijoanJ.I. BelarM. De Paco MatallanaC. Three‐dimensional ultrasonography for advanced neurosonography (neurosofe‐3D): Validation of a brain volume acquisition guideline.Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.20211001849010.1111/aogs.1399632970823
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056262717231108115309
Loading
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056262717231108115309
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test