Prevalence, Determinants, and Management Options of Scar Site Pregnancy in Women With Previous Cesarean Section: A Study From the Al-Qassim Region

Overview

Journal Cureus

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2024 Sep 2

PMID 39219911

Authors

Zaheera Saadia

Khalid Nasralla

Javed Iqbal

Ebtihal Elamin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Pregnancy located outside the uterine cavity following a cesarean section has become more prevalent in recent years due to the increase in cesarean section delivery. This study sought to investigate the prevalence, determinants, and treatment options of scar site pregnancy among women who sought maternal and child health services in a hospital in Buraydah, Al-Qassim region, Saudi Arabia.

Methods: Utilizing a quantitative retrospective case-control design, 50 women were recruited and assigned to the two groups evenly. Demographic data and risk factors were assessed using a questionnaire, and data were analyzed using SPSS version 27 at a 95% confidence interval and presented in tables and figures.

Results: Fifty-eight percent of the participants were aged 35 years and above, with 38% reporting a parity of 1-3. Logistic regression revealed that parity (odds ratio (OR) = 10.975, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.887-135.861, and p-value = 0.062), the interval between the last and present pregnancies (OR = 0.056, 95% CI = 0.005-0.668, p-value = 0.023), intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD) use in the last year (OR = 0.070, 95% CI = 0.006 -0.780, p-value = 0.031) were statistically significant in predicting cesarean scar pregnancy. Combined methotrexate and aspiration were the most prevalent treatment options for scar site pregnancy in this study.

Conclusion: Scar site pregnancy is a maternal health complication that affects women across all healthcare settings, and its prevalence is not clear due to underdiagnosis and underreporting. The risk of scar site pregnancy increased with an increase in the number of childbirths (parity) and the interval between the last and current pregnancies.

References

Jurkovic D, Knez J, Appiah A, Farahani L, Mavrelos D, Ross J . Surgical treatment of Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided suction curettage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47(4):511-7. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15857. View

Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, Schneider D, Herman A . Ectopic pregnancies in a Caesarean scar: review of the medical approach to an iatrogenic complication. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10(6):515-23. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmh042. View

McGurk L, Oliver R, Odejinmi F . Severe morbidity with ectopic pregnancy is associated with late presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 39(5):670-674. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1557610. View

Kumari V, Kumar H, Datta M . The Importance of Ectopic Mindedness: Scar Ectopic Pregnancy, a Diagnostic Dilemma. Cureus. 2021; 13(2):e13089. PMC: 7933601. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13089. View

Timor-Tritsch I, Monteagudo A . Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207(1):14-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.007. View

Baaqeel H . Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Ann Saudi Med. 2009; 29(3):179-83. PMC: 2813649. DOI: 10.4103/0256-4947.51773. View

Bayoglu Tekin Y, Ural U, Balik G, Ustuner I, Kir Sahin F, Guven E . Management of cesarean scar pregnancy with suction curettage: a report of four cases and review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 289(6):1171-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3143-6. View

Westrom L, BENGTSSON L, Mardh P . Incidence, trends, and risks of ectopic pregnancy in a population of women. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981; 282(6257):15-8. PMC: 1503785. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.282.6257.15. View

Larsen J, SOLOMON M . Pregnancy in a uterine scar sacculus--an unusual cause of postabortal haemorrhage. A case report. S Afr Med J. 1978; 53(4):142-3. View

10.

AlSheeha M . Epidemiology of Cesarean Delivery in Qassim, Saudi Arabia. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6(5):891-895. PMC: 5985862. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.213. View

11.

Chow W, Daling J, Cates Jr W, Greenberg R . Epidemiology of ectopic pregnancy. Epidemiol Rev. 1987; 9:70-94. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036309. View

12.

. Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(3):638-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.013. View

13.

Seow K, Huang L, Lin Y, Lin M, Tsai Y, Hwang J . Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23(3):247-53. DOI: 10.1002/uog.974. View

14.

de Braud L, Knez J, Mavrelos D, Thanatsis N, Jauniaux E, Jurkovic D . Risk prediction of major haemorrhage with surgical treatment of live cesarean scar pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 264:224-231. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.07.030. View

15.

Hegde C . Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Some Management Options. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2017; 67(3):153-156. PMC: 5425645. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-017-0987-2. View

16.

Hitzerd E, Bogers H, Kianmanesh Rad N, Duvekot J . A viable caesarean scar pregnancy in a woman using a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device: a case report. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018; 23(2):161-163. DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1447663. View

17.

Rotas M, Haberman S, Levgur M . Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107(6):1373-81. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000218690.24494.ce. View

18.

Zhang H, Huang J, Wu X, Fan H, Li H, Gao T . Clinical classification and treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017; 43(4):653-661. DOI: 10.1111/jog.13267. View

19.

Giampaolino P, De Rosa N, Morra I, Bertrando A, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B . Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Single-Institution Retrospective Review. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018:6486407. PMC: 5859871. DOI: 10.1155/2018/6486407. View

20.

Bouyer J, Coste J, Fernandez H, Pouly J, Job-Spira N . Sites of ectopic pregnancy: a 10 year population-based study of 1800 cases. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(12):3224-30. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.12.3224. View