剖宫产瘢痕妊娠宫腔镜术后胚物残留危险因素分析

王超, 王洋, 杨硕, 马彩虹, 李蓉

中国实用妇科与产科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10) : 1022-1026.

PDF(901 KB)
PDF(901 KB)
中国实用妇科与产科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10) : 1022-1026. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2025100113
论著

剖宫产瘢痕妊娠宫腔镜术后胚物残留危险因素分析

作者信息 +

Risk factors associated with retained products of conception after hysteroscopic surgery for cesarean scar pregnancy

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

目的 既往剖宫产瘢痕妊娠(CSP)手术治疗的研究主要围绕传统刮宫术,近年来宫腔镜下瘢痕部位妊娠病灶切除术逐渐成为CSP治疗的重要方式,但仍面临胚物残留风险。该研究旨在综合多维度客观指标,探讨CSP宫腔镜术后胚物残留的危险因素。方法 回顾性纳入2014年1月至2024年10月于北京大学第三医院妇产科诊断为CSP并采取宫腔镜手术治疗的1022例患者,将术后胚物残留者作为研究组、无残留者作为对照组,比较两组在病史、临床表现、实验室和影像学检查等多方面的差异。结果 CSP宫腔镜术后胚物残留的总体发生率为4.0%(41/1022)。单因素分析提示患者年龄、子宫位置、孕产次、剖宫产次数、既往CSP病史、既往宫腔手术史、该次CSP孕龄、胎心搏动征及术前临床症状(腹痛/阴道流血)等因素均与术后胚物残留无直接相关性(P>0.05)。在纳入交互作用分析后,多因素logistic回归分析结果提示,孕囊平均直径≥15mm且磁共振测定子宫下段瘢痕处残余肌层厚度<2.5mm(OR=4.262,95%CI 2.179~8.337,P<0.001)是胚物残留的独立危险因素。结论 CSP宫腔镜术后胚物残留与孕囊直径及子宫下段瘢痕处残余肌层厚度密切相关。CSP患者采取宫腔镜手术治疗前应全面综合评估、严格把握适应证,早发现、早干预是降低胚物残留发生率的重要方式。

Abstract

Objective Previous studies on the surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) have primarily focused on traditional dilation and curettage. In recent years,hysteroscopic resection of the scar site pregnancy lesion has gradually become an important method for CSP treatment,but it still faces the risk of retained products of conception (RPOC). This study aims to explore the risk factors associated with RPOC after hysteroscopic surgery for CSP by integrating multi-dimensional objective indicators. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted in 1022 patients diagnosed with CSP and treated with hysteroscopic surgery at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Peking University Third Hospital from January 2014 to October 2024. Patients with postoperative RPOC were included as the study group,and those without RPOC as the control group. Differences in medical history,clinical manifestations,laboratory and imaging examinations,and other aspects were compared between the two groups. Results The overall incidence of RPOC after hysteroscopic surgery for CSP was 4.0% (41/1022). Univariate analysis indicated that patient’s age,uterine position,gravidity and parity,number of cesarean sections,history of CSP,history of intrauterine surgery,gestational age at this CSP diagnosis,presence of fetal heart activity,and preoperative clinical symptoms (abdominal pain/ vaginal bleeding) were not directly related to postoperative RPOC(all P>0.05). After incorporating interaction analysis,multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a mean gestational sac diameter≥15 mm and a residual myometrial thickness <2.5 mm at the lower uterine segment scar site measured by magnetic resonance imaging (OR=4.262,95% CI 2.179-8.337,P<0.001) were independent risk factors for RPOC. Conclusions RPOC after hysteroscopic surgery for CSP is closely related to the diameter of the gestational sac and the residual myometrial thickness at the lower uterine segment scar site. A comprehensive assessment and strict indication control should be conducted before CSP patients undergo hysteroscopic surgery. Early detection and early intervention are important ways to reduce the incidence of RPOC.

关键词

剖宫产瘢痕妊娠 / 宫腔镜 / 胚物残留 / 危险因素

Key words

mesenchymal tumors of the uterine corpus / intraoperative frozen section examination / permanent section examination / accuracy / clinical application value

引用本文

导出引用
王超, 王洋, 杨硕, . 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠宫腔镜术后胚物残留危险因素分析[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志. 2025, 41(10): 1022-1026 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.fk2025100113
WANG Chao, WANG Yang, YANG Shuo, et al. Risk factors associated with retained products of conception after hysteroscopic surgery for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2025, 41(10): 1022-1026 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.fk2025100113
中图分类号: R719.8   

参考文献

[1]
Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates:global and regional estimates[J]. BMJ Glob Health, 2021, 6(6):e005671. DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671.
[2]
Li HT, Hellerstein S, Zhou YB, et al. Trends in cesarean delivery rates in China,2008-2018[J]. JAMA, 2020, 323(1):89-91. DOI:10.1001/jama.2019.17595.
[3]
Shi H, Chen L, Wei Y, et al. Improving maternal healthcare further in China at a time of low maternal mortality[J]. BMJ, 2024, 386:e078640. DOI:10.1136/bmj-2023-078640.
[4]
Silva B, Viana Pinto P, Costa MA. Cesarean scar pregnancy:A systematic review on expectant management[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2023, 288:36-43. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.06.030.
[5]
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #63:Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2022, 227(3):B9-B20. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.024.
[6]
Jiang Y, Liu Y, Liu N, et al. Efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy:a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis[J]. Int J Hyperthermia, 2024, 41(1):2310019. DOI:10.1080/02656736.2024.2310019.
[7]
Salari S, Lindheim SR. To see or not to see? That is the miscarriage management question[J]. Fertil Steril, 2024, 122(6):1022-1023. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.09.021.
[8]
Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Saccone G, et al. Hysteroscopic resection vs ultrasound-guided dilation and evacuation for treatment of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy:a randomized clinical trial[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2023, 229(4):437.e1-437.e7. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.04.038.
[9]
Fu P, Sun H, Zhang L, et al. Efficacy and safety of treatment modalities for cesarean scar pregnancy:a systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM, 2024, 6(8):101328. DOI:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101328.
[10]
杨雪, 夏恩兰, 马宁, 等. 胚物残留的治疗现状及进展[J]. 中国医刊, 2022, 57(12):1298-1301. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-1070.2022.12.006.
[11]
Bortoletto P, Romanski PA, Schatz-Siemers N, et al. Retained products of conception as an aetiology for endometritis[J]. BJOG, 2022, 129(2):185-187. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.16916.
[12]
Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Goldstein SR. Early first-trimester transvaginal ultrasound screening for cesarean scar pregnancy in patients with previous cesarean delivery:analysis of the evidence[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2024, 231(6):618-625. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.06.041.
[13]
Verberkt C, Jordans IPM, van den Bosch T, et al. How to perform standardized sonographic examination of Cesarean scar pregnancy in the first trimester[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2024, 64(3):412-418. DOI:10.1002/uog.27604.
[14]
洪莉. 剖宫产瘢痕妊娠宫腔镜手术治疗[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2018, 34(8):854-858. DOI:10.19538/j.fk2018080107.
[15]
Sundararajan S, Roy S, Polanski LT. The accuracy of ultrasound scan in diagnosing retained products of conception:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2024, 230(5):512-531.e3. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.11.1243.
[16]
Chawla S, Sharma R. Retained Products of conception (RPOC):diagnosis,complication & management[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol India, 2023, 73(5):374-380. DOI:10.1007/s13224-023-01873-6.
[17]
Noguchi T, Shiro M, Nanjo S, et al. Risk factors of retained products of conception after miscarriage or termination with gemeprost in the second trimester of pregnancy:a retrospective case-controlled study in Japanese population[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2022, 42(3):501-504. DOI:10.1080/01443615.2021.1916810.
[18]
George JS, Naert MN, Lanes A, et al. Utility of office hysteroscopy in diagnosing retained products of conception following early pregnancy loss after in vitro fertilization[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2023, 142(5):1019-1027. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005382.
[19]
中华医学会妇产科学分会计划生育学组, 中国医师协会妇产科医师分会生育调控学组. 中孕期剖宫产瘢痕妊娠临床管理专家共识(2024年版)[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2024, 40(11):1108-1113. DOI:10.19538/j.fk2024110112.
[20]
Ma R, Chen S, Xu W, et al. Surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy based on the three-category system:a retrospective analysis[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2024, 24(1):687. DOI:10.1186/s12884-024-06887-0.
[21]
Yang M, Cao L, Yan J, et al. Risk factors associated with the failure of initial treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2023, 162(3):937-944. DOI:10.1002/ijgo.14761.
[22]
Lei Y, Zhang N, Liu Y, et al. A prediction nomogram for residual after negative pressure aspiration for endogenic cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective study[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2025, 25(1):107. DOI:10.1186/s12884-025-07255-2.
[23]
侯倩男, 何丽. 机器人赋能经阴道自然腔道内镜手术——妇科微创手术的未来[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2025, 41(7):706-710. DOI:10.19538/j.fk2025070109.
[24]
葛蓓蕾, 孙静. 保留生育功能的经阴道自然腔道内镜手术应用与进展[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2025, 41(7):683-687. DOI:10.19538/j.fk2025070103.

基金

国家自然科学基金(82301962)
北京大学第三医院临床重点项目(BYSYZD2021014)

PDF(901 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/