Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology

journal homepage: www.tjog-online.com

Review Article

Systematic review: What is the best rst-line approach for cesarean

section ectopic pregnancy?
Mine Kanat-Pektas a, *, Serkan Bodur b, Ozgur Dundar c, Vuslat Lale Bakr d
a

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Afyon Kocatepe University Medical Faculty Hospital, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beytepe Military Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
c
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gulhane Military Academy of Medicine Haydarpasa Military Education Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
d
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haseki Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Accepted 30 March 2015

This systematic review aims to analyze the case reports, case series, or clinical studies describing the
women with cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP), and thus, to determine the efcacy and safety of
different primary treatment modalities in the management of CSEP.
A thorough search of electronic databases showed that 274 articles on CSEP were published between
January 1978 and April 2014.
Systemic methotrexate, uterine artery embolization, dilatation and curettage (D&C), hysterotomy, and
hysteroscopy were the most frequently adopted rst-line approaches. The success rates of systemic
methotrexate, uterine artery embolization, hysteroscopy, D&C, and hysterotomy were 8.7%, 18.3%, 39.1%,
61.6%, and 92.1%, respectively. The hysterectomy rates were 3.6%, 1.1%, 0.0%, 7.3%, and 1.7% in CSEP cases
that were treated by systemic methotrexate, uterine artery embolization, hysteroscopy, D&C, and hysterotomy, respectively. The ability to achieve a subsequent term pregnancy is related to successful systemic methotrexate treatment (p 0.001) or hysterotomy (p 0.009). Future term pregnancy was
signicantly more frequent in the hysterotomy group (p 0.001).
Hysteroscopy and laparoscopic hysterotomy are safe and efcient surgical procedures that can be
adopted as primary treatment modalities for CSEP. Uterine artery embolization should be reserved for
cases with signicant bleeding and/or a high suspicion index for arteriovenous malformation. Systemic
methotrexate and D&C are not recommended as rst-line approaches for CSEP, as these procedures are
associated with high complication and hysterectomy rates.
Copyright 2016, Taiwan Association of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).

Keywords:
cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy
ectopic pregnancy
treatment

Introduction
Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) refers to implantation of
pregnancy within the myometrial tissue that corresponds to the
site of prior hysterotomy. However, CSEP usually occurs as a late
complication of a previously performed cesarean section [1].
Up to date, caesarean scar pregnancy (CSEP) is considered as the
rarest form of the ectopic pregnancies. Although its exact incidence
is unknown, the incidence of CSEP has been estimated to be 1/3000
for the general obstetric population, 1/1800e1/2500 for all

* Corresponding author. Selcuklu Mah. Adnan Kahveci Cad., Number 16/2, D: 4,

Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
E-mail address: minekanat@hotmail.com (M. Kanat-Pektas).

cesarean deliveries, and 1/531 for women who had at least one
cesarean delivery [2].
The diagnosis of CSEP is often difcult, and a false-negative
diagnosis may result in major complications such as severe hemorrhage, uterine rupture, and emergency hysterectomy. The
following criteria are required for the diagnosis of CSEP: (1) empty
uterus and empty cervical canal; (2) development of gestational sac
or placental tissue in the anterior wall of the cervical isthmus; (3)
discontinuity on the anterior uterine wall as demonstrated on a
sagittal plane of the uterus running through the amniotic sac; (4)
absent or diminished healthy myometrium between the bladder
and gestational sac/placental tissue; and (5) high velocity with low
impedance peritrophoblastic vascular ow clearly surrounding the
sac in Doppler examination [2,3].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2015.03.009
1028-4559/Copyright 2016, Taiwan Association of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

264

M. Kanat-Pektas et al. / Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

Up to date, there is no standard treatment modality for CSEP.

Therapeutic options can be medical, surgical, or a combination of
both. Since there is a dramatic rise in the prevalence of cesarean
delivery, it is obvious that more women will be diagnosed with
CSEP in the near future. Therefore, a set of criteria should be
developed for the therapeutic options [3].
This systematic review aims to analyze the case reports, case
series, or clinical studies describing the women with CSEP, and thus,
to determine the efcacy and safety of different primary treatment
modalities in the management of CSEP. To the best of our knowledge, the present review is the most extensive and comprehensive
account of rst-line approaches that have been adopted for the
treatment of CSEP cases.
Materials and methods
Literature search
In order to conduct the present meta-analysis, a detailed search
was conducted within the following electronic databases: CENTRAL
(in the Cochrane Library, current issue), PUBMED/MEDLINE (Silver
Platter, from January 1978 to April 2014), and EMBASE (from
January 1978 to April 2014). A search was initiated to acquire all the
related publications using the keyword cesarean section ectopic
pregnancy. After that, all free text MH exact subject headings and
MH exact subject heading terms were explored. Any new terms
found were fed into the search strategy so that new searches could
be run. After the relevant articles were identied and scanned,
reference lists of the relevant papers were scrutinized for further
studies. Besides, relevant articles were re-entered into PubMed (up
to April 2014), and using the related articles feature, a further
search was carried out. There was no language restriction so that
the papers in all languages were sought and translated. Full texts of
the identied articles were selected with nal inclusion or exclusion decisions made after independent and duplicate examination
of the papers. This systematic review included the case reports,
case series, and clinical studies that reported on the diagnosis and
treatment of CSEP. The year 1978 was chosen as a starting point for
literature search because it was the year of the rst published
report on CSEP [4].
Study selection
A thorough search of electronic databases showed that 274 articles were published between January 1978 and April 2014. All
included manuscripts were assessed by at least two reviewers
(M.K.P. and O.D.) for study and reporting quality using validated
tools. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or arbitration of a
third reviewer. By the abstract evaluation of those 274 articles, 243
articles were found to be associated with the diagnosis, presentation, and treatment of CSEP.
Whenever multiple/duplicate publications of the same data set
are noticed, only the most recent and/or complete study was
included. Multiple/duplicate publications (n 6) and articles presenting insufcient data (n 8) were excluded. Similarly, reviews,
letters, comments, and editorials (n 35) were also eliminated.
Consequently, data about 1647 women with CSEP were retrieved
from 126 individual case reports, 45 case series, and 23 clinical
studies, which were included for nal analysis. The procedure for
study selection is summarized in Figure 1.
Data extraction
Data related to maternal age, gravidity, parity, the number of
prior cesarean deliveries, indication for previous cesarean delivery,

interval to prior cesarean delivery, gestational age, crownerump

length measurements, existence of embryonic/fetal cardiac activity,
serum concentration of beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (bHCG) at the time of admission, clinical symptoms, treatment modalities, resolution time, and future fertility were retrieved from the
original manuscript.
Limitation and bias
The major limitation of the study was the dependence on
nonstandardized knowledge gathered from anecdotal case reports
and series. The methods of b-HCG measurement, the methods of
crownerump length measurement, the quality of ultrasonography
equipment, and the experience or skillfulness of the sonographers
were not uniform and lacked standardization. Moreover, the representation and reportage of data related to CSEP lacked constancy
and uniformity.
Statistical analysis
Collected data were analyzed by SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables were expressed as
mean standard deviation or median, and categorical variables
were denoted as numbers or percentages where appropriate. Chisquare test, ManneWhitney U test, and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed. A p values < 0.05 was considered to
be statistically signicant.
Results
Systemic methotrexate, uterine artery embolization, dilatation
and curettage (D&C), and hysteroscopy were the most frequently
adopted rst-line approaches for CSEP (Table 1).
Systemic methotrexate was successful in only 8.7% of the cases.
Secondary treatment was D&C, uterine artery embolization, hysteroscopy, and transvaginal sonography-guided intragestational
methotrexate injection in, respectively, 40.5%, 24.8%, 12.3%, and
11.6% of CSEP cases that underwent methotrexate treatment. Hysterectomy was indicated in 20 cases, corresponding to a rate of
3.6%. Higher parity, a higher number of prior cesarean deliveries,
lower gestational age, absence of bleeding and embryonic cardiac
activity, and longer duration of resolution were signicantly associated with the success of systemic methotrexate (p 0.023,
p 0.018, p 0.001, p 0.002, p 0.029, and p 0.001, respectively; Table 2).
The success rate of uterine artery embolization was only 18.3%.
Secondary treatment was D&C, transvaginal sonography-guided
intragestational methotrexate injection, hysteroscopy, and systemic methotrexate in, respectively, 50.2%, 16.9%, 15.9%, and 14.2%
of CSEP cases that were primarily treated with uterine artery
embolization. Hysterectomy was required in four cases, yielding a
rate of 1.1%. Lower maternal age, lower gravidity, lower parity, a
higher number of prior cesarean deliveries, and longer duration of
resolution were signicantly associated with successful uterine
artery embolization (p 0.007, p 0.001, p 0.001, p 0.001, and
p 0.001, respectively; Table 3).
Hysteroscopic resection of gestational tissue was performed in
60 cases and hysteroscopic hysterotomy was performed in 36 cases.
By contrast, intragestational methotrexate injection was administered in 12 cases, intragestational ethanol injection was administered in one case, and gestational sac was aspirated following
intragestational methotrexate injection in one case. The success
rate of hysteroscopy was 39.1%, and 60.9% of the cases required
complementary treatment. Secondary treatment was systemic
mifepristone, systemic methotrexate, hysterotomy, and D&C in,

M. Kanat-Pektas et al. / Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

265

Potentially relevant citations identified from electronic searches to identify primary articles on
cesarean section ectopic pregnancy (n = 274)

Primary articles retrieved for detailed evaluation

References excluded after screening

From electronic searches (n = 237)

titles and abstracts (n = 31)

From reference lists (n = 6)

Articles excluded
-Multiple/duplicate publication (n = 6)
-Reviews/letters/comments/editorials (n = 35)
-Insufficient data to be included in systematic review (n = 8)

Primary articles included in systematic review (n = 194)

Case reports (n = 126)
Case series (n = 45)
Clinical studies (n = 23)

Figure 1. Literature search and study selection process for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy.

Table 1
Primary treatment modalities of cesarean section ectopic pregnancy.
Primary modality

n (%)

Systemic methotrexate
Uterine artery embolization
Dilatation and curettage
Hysterotomy
Hysteroscopy
Hysteroscopic removal of gestational tissue
Hysteroscopic hysterotomy
Hysteroscopic intragestational methotrexate injection
Hysteroscopic intragestational ethanol injection
Hysteroscopic aspiration of gestational sac after intragestational methotrexate injection
Transvaginal sonography-guided gestational sac aspiration
Transabdominal sonography-guided local intragestational methotrexate injection
Transvaginal sonography-guided local intragestational methotrexate injection
Hysterectomy
Transvaginal sonography-guided local intragestational vasopressin injection
Transvaginal sonography-guided local intragestational KCl injection
Transabdominal sonography-guided local intragestational KCl injection
Bilateral hypogastric artery ligation
Total

559 (33.9)
361 (21.9)
232 (14.1)
174 (10.6)
110 (6.7)
60
36
12
1
1
61 (3.7)
59 (3.6)
50 (3.0)
25 (1.5)
6 (0.4)
6 (0.4)
3 (0.2)
1 (0.1)
1647 (100.0)

266

M. Kanat-Pektas et al. / Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

Table 2
Cesarean section ectopic pregnancies primarily treated with systemic methotrexate.

Maternal age (y)

Gravidity
Parity
Prior cesarean delivery
Time from prior cesarean delivery (mo)
Indication for cesarean delivery
Cephalopelvic disproportion
Fetal distress
Bleeding
Gestational age (wk)
Crownerump length (mm)
Beta-HCG (IU/mL)
Fetal cardiac activity
Resolution time (d)
Future term pregnancy

Successful
(n 144)

Unsuccessful
(n 415)

33.3 3.5
3.6 1.6
2.0 1.5
1.5 0.8
5.8 3.4

33.1 4.3
3.4 1.4
1.5 1.0
1.2 0.5
5.4 4.0

0.670
0.310
0.023*
0.018*
0.556
0.016*

0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
20 (13.9)
7.2 1.1
13.3 1.2
25,522.7 22,080.2
5 (3.5)
60.1 18.9
17 (11.8)

8 (1.9)
4 (1.0)
172 (41.4)
7.8 1.3
12.3 5.5
42,142.2 25,129.2
64 (15.4)
39.2 31.7
6 (1.4)

0.002*
0.001*
0.768
0.588
0.029*
0.001*
0.001*

Data are presented as n (%) or mean standard deviation.

*p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically signicant.
HCG human chorionic gonadotropin.

Table 3
Cesarean section ectopic pregnancies primarily treated with uterine artery embolization.

Maternal age (y)

Gravidity
Parity
Prior cesarean delivery
Time from prior cesarean delivery (mo)
Bleeding
Gestational age (wk)
Beta-HCG (IU/mL)
Resolution time (d)
Future fertility
Term pregnancy
Miscarriage

Successful
(n 66)

Unsuccessful
(n 295)

31.6 2.0
3.0 0.3
2.2 0.6
3.9 1.0
5.5 1.2
22 (33.3)
7.7 1.3
33,409.9 5880.7
58.5 4.3

33.1 5.1
3.7 1.4
1.3 0.5
1.2 0.5
5.6 3.1
113 (38.3)
8.0 1.8
40,807.7 40,434.2
35.0 20.5

0.007*
0.001*
0.001*
0.001*
0.808
0.181
0.192
0.079
0.001*

1 (1.5)
0 (0.0)

6 (2.0)
9 (3.1)

0.361
0.001*

Data are presented as n (%) or mean standard deviation.

*p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically signicant.
HCG human chorionic gonadotropin.

respectively, 53.7%, 26.9%, 16.4%, and 3.0% of CSEP cases that were
primarily treated with hysteroscopy. However, no hysterectomy
was needed. Lower gravidity, lower parity, a higher number of prior
cesarean deliveries, lower gestational age, and shorter duration of
resolution were signicantly associated with successful hysteroscopy (p 0.006, p 0.001, p 0.001, p 0.016, and p 0.001,
respectively; Table 4).
Table 4
Cesarean section ectopic pregnancies primarily treated with hysteroscopy.

Maternal age (y)

Gravidity
Parity
Prior cesarean delivery
Bleeding
Gestational age (wk)
Beta-HCG (IU/mL)
Fetal cardiac activity
Resolution time (d)
Future term pregnancy

Successful
(n 43)

Unsuccessful
(n 67)

32.2 3.3
2.4 0.5
1.3 0.5
1.3 0.4
3 (7.0)
6.8 1.0
34,132.3 14,284.8
8 (18.6)
19.7 7.2
1 (2.3)

30.4 3.9
3.3 0.8
2.1 0.3
3.6 1.1
14 (20.9)
8.2 1.4
30,116.1 11,143.0
2 (3.0)
35.8 8.6
5 (7.5)

0.124
0.006*
0.001*
0.001*
0.051
0.016*
0.367
0.398
0.001*
0.381

Data are presented as n (%) or mean standard deviation.

*p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically signicant.
HCG human chorionic gonadotropin.

The success rate of D&C was 61.6% in the CSEP cases. Secondary
treatment was uterine artery embolization, systemic methotrexate,
hysterotomy, and intragestational vasopressin injection in,
respectively, 60.7%, 10.1%, 6.7%, and 5.6% of CSEP cases that were
primarily treated with D&C. Hysterectomy was indicated in 17
cases, yielding a rate of 7.3%. Shorter time from prior cesarean delivery, presence of embryonic cardiac activity, and absence of
symptoms were signicantly related with successful D&C
(p 0.031, p 0.044, and p 0.001, respectively; Table 5).
Hysterotomy was performed by laparoscopy (48.3%), laparotomy (44.8%), and transvaginal route (6.9%). Hysterotomy was successful in 92.1% of the cases. Secondary treatment was D&C,
systemic methotrexate, uterine artery embolization, and hysteroscopy in, respectively, 50%, 14.3%, 7.1%, and 7.1% of the cases who
underwent hysterotomy. Hysterectomy was performed in three
cases, corresponding to a rate of 1.7%. No factors were signicantly
associated with successful hysterotomy (Table 6).
Table 7 compares the most frequently adopted rst-line approaches for CSEP. Maternal age, gravidity, parity, and serum b-HCG
levels were signicantly higher in the hysterotomy group. The
number of previous cesarean deliveries was signicantly higher
and the time from prior cesarean delivery was signicantly longer
in the uterine artery embolization group. Bleeding and embryonic
cardiac activity were signicantly more frequent, and gestational

M. Kanat-Pektas et al. / Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

267

Table 5
Cesarean section ectopic pregnancies primarily treated with dilatation and curettage.

Maternal age (y)

Gravidity
Parity
Prior cesarean delivery
Time from prior cesarean delivery (mo)
Indication for cesarean delivery
Cephalopelvic disproportion
Fetal distress
Asymptomatic
Gestational age (wk)
Crownerump length (mm)
Beta-HCG (IU/mL)
Embryonic cardiac activity
Resolution time (d)
Future fertility
Term pregnancy
Miscarriage

Successful
(n 143)

Unsuccessful
(n 89)

33.9 3.9
4.0 1.2
1.9 0.9
1.6 0.9
3.7 2.3

33.1 4.5
4.2 1.4
1.6 0.8
1.5 0.7
5.8 3.0

0.253
0.467
0.067
0.230
0.031*
0.190

0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
73 (51.0)
8.4 4.0
12.4 0.5
32,105.6 24,443.3
18 (12.6)
46.3 26.9

2 (2.2)
1 (1.1)
21 (23.6)
8.0 1.5
15.0 8.7
25,684.8 25,169.9
7 (7.9)
37.2 17.6

0.001*
0.408
0.710
0.270
0.044*
0.451

5 (3.5)
10 (7.0)

3 (3.4)
2 (2.2)

0.256
0.001*

Successful
(n 160)

Unsuccessful
(n 14)

34.4 3.2
3.8 1.6
2.0 0.9
1.7 0.7
5.5 2.7

34.1 6.2
4.2 1.5
1.9 0.7
1.5 0.7
3.5 2.1

0.855
0.437
0.577
0.595
0.318
0.609

2 (1.3)
2 (1.3)
44 (27.5)
7.9 1.8
9.7 7.6
60,754.8 60,092.1
24 (15.0)
20.2 10.2

0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (14.3)
8.5 2.3
10.0 8.6
47,722.6 39,599.4
9 (64.3)
21.9 12.4

0.443
0.294
0.754
0.303
0.358
0.637

23 (14.4)
4 (2.5)

0 (0.0)
2 (14.3)

0.009*
0.009*

Data are presented as n (%) or mean standard deviation.

*p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically signicant.
HCG human chorionic gonadotropin.

Table 6
Cesarean section ectopic pregnancies primarily treated with hysterotomy.

Maternal age (y)

Gravidity
Parity
Prior cesarean delivery
Time from prior cesarean delivery (mo)
Indication for cesarean delivery
Cephalopelvic disproportion
Breech presentation
Bleeding
Gestational age (wk)
Crownerump length (mm)
Beta-HCG (IU/mL)
Embryonic cardiac activity
Resolution time (d)
Future fertility
Term pregnancy
Miscarriage
Data are presented as n (%) or mean standard deviation.
*p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically signicant.
HCG human chorionic gonadotropin.

Table 7
Comparison of most frequently adopted rst-line approaches for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy.

Maternal age (y)

Gravidity
Parity
Prior C/S
Time from prior C/S (mo)
Indication for C/S
CPD
Fetal distress
Bleeding
Gestational age (wk)
CRL (mm)
Beta-HCG (IU/mL)
Fetal cardiac activity
Resolution time (d)
Future term pregnancy

Hysterotomy (n 160)

Systemic methotrexate (n 144)

D&C (n 143)

UAE (n 66)

H/S (n 43)

34.4 3.2
3.8 1.6
2.0 0.9
1.7 0.7
5.5 2.7

33.3 3.5
3.6 1.6
2.0 1.5
1.5 0.8
5.8 3.4

33.9 3.9
4.0 1.2
1.9 0.9
1.6 0.9
3.7 2.3

31.6 2.0
3.0 0.3
2.2 0.6
3.9 1.0
5.5 1.2

32.2 3.3
2.4 0.5
1.3 0.5
1.3 0.4
d

0.001*
0.001*
0.001*
0.001*
0.001*
0.364

2 (1.3)
2 (1.3)
44 (27.5)
7.9 1.8
9.7 7.6
60,754.8 60,092.1
24 (15.0)
20.2 10.2
23 (14.4)

0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
20 (13.9)
7.2 1.1
13.3 1.2
25,522.7 22,080.2
5 (3.5)
60.1 18.9
17 (11.8)

0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
73 (51.0)
8.4 4.0
12.4 0.5
32,105.6 24,443.3
18 (12.6)
46.3 26.9
5 (3.5)

d
d
22 (33.3)
7.7 1.3
d
33,409.9 5880.7
d
58.5 4.3
1 (1.5)

d
d
3 (7.0)
6.8 1.0
d
34,132.3 14,284.8
8 (18.6)
19.7 7.2
1 (2.3)

0.001*
0.001*
0.308
0.001*
0.001*
0.001*
0.001*

Data are presented as n (%) or mean standard deviation.

CPD cephalopelvic disproportion; CRL crownerump length; C/S cesarean section; D&C dilatation and curettage; H/S hysteroscopy; HCG human chorionic
gonadotropin; UAE uterine artery embolization.
*p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically signicant.

268

M. Kanat-Pektas et al. / Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

age was signicantly higher in the D&C group. Future term pregnancy was signicantly more frequent in the hysterotomy group
(p 0.001 for each).
Discussion
In case of CSEP, successful births have been described with
expectant management, but the prognosis for an uneventful term
pregnancy is poor. The hysterectomy rates in these cases are
considerably high because of the increased risk of placenta previa/
accreta, uterine rupture, and related life-threatening massive
hemorrhage [5,6]. Therefore, termination of pregnancy in the rst
trimester is generally recommended. The treatment of CSEP should
aim at the prevention of massive blood loss and conservation of
uterus so that health status, life quality, and future fertility of
affected women should be maintained [6,7].
The incidence of CSEP has been substantially elevated, probably
owing to the increasing rate of caesarean deliveries and awareness
of this pathology. Despite this prominent increase, no universal
treatment guidelines have been established till now, and the
management of CSEP in daily clinical practice is still based on
anecdotal case reports and small series [8,9].
Initially, systemic methotrexate has been adopted as a rst-line
approach for the CSEP treatment [10]. At rst, the success rate of
systemic methotrexate was reported to range between 71% and
80%, with a hysterectomy rate of only 6% [11]. Later, it was
concluded that systemic methotrexate alone had a 62.1% complication rate [12]. This systematic review also showed that rst-line
systematic methotrexate was successful in only 8.7% of CSEP
cases, and hysterectomy rate was approximately 4%. However, the
ability to achieve a subsequent term pregnancy was found to be
related to successful systemic methotrexate treatment.
These ndings point out the inappropriateness of recommending systemic methotrexate as a rst-line approach for CSEP. The
reason is that it may take a long time before systemic methotrexate
exerts its effects on embryonic cardiac activity and placental
growth, and there is a possibility that these effects may never occur.
If this is the case, complementary treatment is aimed at a larger
gestational sac with an enriched vascularization. Wasting such
precious time may eventually result in with more severe complications that may harm the patients.
Uterine artery embolization was originally developed as a conservative treatment for postpartum hemorrhage, uterine leiomyomas, and cervical pregnancy. Utilization of uterine artery
embolization in association with systemic or local administration of
methotrexate for the treatment of CSEP was reported in several
case series [13e16]. A recently published expert review stated that
uterine artery embolization alone had a complication rate of 80%,
and thus, uterine artery embolization should be used as a spare
method in uncomplicated cases of CSEP [12]. As for the present
review, complementary treatment was required in 82% of the CSEP
cases that were primarily treated with uterine artery embolization,
and the inability to maintain a subsequent pregnancy was associated with the failure of unsuccessful uterine artery. These ndings
suggest that the use of uterine artery embolization as a rst-line
approach should be limited to cases with signicant bleeding
and/or a high suspicion index for arteriovenous malformation.
Hysteroscopy allows direct visualization of the gestational sac
and coagulation of the related vascular texture at the implantation
site so that any profuse bleeding may be prevented. Other advantages of this minimally invasive procedure over systemic methotrexate and uterine artery embolization are the avoidance of
toxicity, shorter duration of resolution, and rapid return to fertility.
However, the procedure requires general anesthesia, trained health
staff, and operative equipment [17e19].

The rst application of this minimally invasive procedure in the

treatment of CSEP was described by Wang et al [17]. Similar studies
have since reported encouraging data about the hysteroscopic
management of CSEP and claimed that this procedure offers less
blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and shorter resolution time [18e23]. An expert review also designated hysteroscopy as an optimal rst-line approach for CSEP with the lowest
complication rate (15.7%) [12]. Accordingly, this review showed
that hysteroscopy was successful in 39% of the reviewed CSEP cases,
and there was no need for hysterectomy.
Arslan et al [24] described the rst case of CSEP that was successfully treated with D&C alone. Although the same technique failed
or caused complications in other case series [11,24e31], it was argued
that D&C could be performed under sonographic control if gestational age was < 7 weeks and myometrial thickness was > 3.5 mm
[23,24,31]. A recent review demonstrated that D&C alone had a
complication rate of 63% in the treatment of CSEP [32]. This systematic review showed that D&C was successful in 62% of cases, and
the hysterectomy rate was nearly 7%. Therefore, it would be rational
to avoid D&C as a rst-line approach, since it can lead to profuse
bleeding and complementary treatment procedures, requiring general anesthesia, blood transfusion, and laparotomy. In addition, D&C
as a rst-line approach is associated with infertility and poor obstetric
outcome irrespective of whether it is successful or not.
Wedge excision of CSEP by hysterotomy is mandatory when
uterine rupture is conrmed or strongly suspected. This conventional surgery allows complete removal of the CSEP and simultaneous repair of the myometrial scar, so that any probable
recurrence is hindered and the resolution time is shortened [6e9].
Yet, this approach results in larger surgical wounds, postoperative
adhesions, longer hospital stay, and longer recovery time, with a
possible higher risk of future placenta previa/accreta [33,34].
Laparoscopic wedge resection of CSEP is justied in hemodynamically stable women who have deeply implanted gestational sacs
growing toward the abdominal cavity and bladder. Similar to hysteroscopy, this technique also requires general anesthesia, operative skills, and equipment. The rst case of CSEP managed with
laparoscopy was reported by Lee et al [35]. The following reports
suggest that laparoscopic evacuation of CSEP is a safe and less timeconsuming procedure [19,35e37].
An expert review also designated hysteroscopy as an optimal
rst-line approach for CSEP with a lower complication rate (20%)
[12]. This systematic review demonstrated that hysterotomy successfully treated 92% of the reviewed CSEP cases, and hysterectomy
was required in only 2% of the cases. Moreover, the ability to achieve a subsequent term pregnancy was found to be related to
successful hysterotomy, whereas the inability to maintain a subsequent pregnancy is associated with unsuccessful hysterotomy.
Hysteroscopy and laparoscopic hysterotomy appear as safe and
efcient surgical procedures that can be adopted as primary
treatment modalities for CSEP. Uterine artery embolization should
be reserved for CSEP cases with signicant bleeding and/or a high
suspicion index for arteriovenous malformation. Systemic methotrexate and D&C are not recommended as rst-line approaches for
CSEP, as these procedures are associated with high complication
rates and require hysterectomy.
Conicts of interest
The authors have no conicts of interest relevant to this article.
References
[1] Clark EAS, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat
cesarean delivery. AJOG 2011;205(6 Suppl.):S2e10.

M. Kanat-Pektas et al. / Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 55 (2016) 263e269

[2] Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA. The
diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. AJOG
2012;207:44.e1e44.e13.
[3] Litwicka K, Greco E. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a review of management
options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013;25:456e61.
[4] Larsen JV, Solomon MH. Pregnancy in a uterine scar sacculus: an unusual
cause of post-abortal hemorrhage. S Afr Med J 1978;53:142e3.
[5] Ben Nagi J, Oli-Yebovi D, Marsh M, Jurkovic D. First-trimester cesarean scar
pregnancy evolving into placenta previa/accreta at term. J Ultrasound Med
2005;24:1569e73.
[6] Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG 2007;114:
253e63.
[7] 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;10:515e23.
[8] Rotas M, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies. Obstet
Gynecol 2006;107:1373e81.
[9] Sadeghi H, Rutherford T, Rackow B, Campbell KH, Duzyj CM, Guess MK, et al.
Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: case series and review of the literature. Am J
Perinatol 2010;27:111e20.
[10] The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril
2013;100:638e44.
[11] Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Salim R, Elson CJ. First trimester
diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine
segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21:220e7.
[12] Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing
rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. AJOG 2012;207:14e29.
[13] Ghezzi F, Lagana D, Franchi M, Fugazzola C, Bolis P. Conservative treatment by
chemotherapy and uterine artery embolization of a cesarean scar pregnancy.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;103:88e91.
 M, Valenzano M. Intramural
[14] Marchiole P, Gorlero F, de Caro G, Podesta
pregnancy embedded in a previous cesarean section scar treated conservatively. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:307e9.
[15] Imbar T, Bloom A, Ushakov F, Yagel S. Uterine artery embolization to control
haemorrhage after termination of pregnancy implanted in a caesarean delivery scar. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:1111e5.
[16] Hois E, Hibbeln J, Alonzo M, Chen ME, Freimanis MG. Ectopic pregnancy in a
caesarean section treated with intramuscular methotrexate and bilateral
uterine artery embolization. J Clin Ultrasound 2008;36:123e7.
[17] Wang CJ, Yuen LT, Chao AS, Lee CL, Yen CF, Soong YK. Caesarean scar pregnancy successfully treated by operative hysteroscopy and suction curettage.
BJOG 2005;112:839e40.
[18] Deans R, Abbot J. Hysteroscopic management of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2010;93:1735e40.
[19] Chao A, Wang TH, Wang CJ, Lee CL, Chao AS. Hysteroscopic management of
caesarean scar pregnancy after unsuccessful methotrexate treatment. J Minim
Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:374e6.

269

[20] Robinson J, Dayal M, Gindoff P, Frankfurter D. A novel surgical treatment for

caesarean scar pregnancy: laparoscopically assisted operative hysteroscopy.
Fertil Steril 2009;92:1497.e13e6.
[21] Li H, Guo H, Han JS, Wang JL, Xiong GW, Shen J, et al. Endoscopic treatment of
ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:
31e5.
[22] Chang Y, Kay N, Chen YH, Chen HS, Tsai EM. Resectoscopic treatment of
ectopic pregnancy in previous caesarean delivery scar defect with vasopressin
injection. Fertil Steril 2011;96:e80e2.
[23] Wang CJ, Chao AS, Yuen LT, Wang CW, Soong YK, Lee CL. Endoscopic management of caesarean scar pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2006;85:494e7.
[24] Arslan M, Pata O, Dilek TU, Aktas A, Aban M, Dilek S. Treatment of viable
caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy with suction curettage. Int J Gynecol Obstet
2005;89:163e6.
[25] Yang XY, Yu H, Li KM, Chu YX, Zheng A. Uterine artery embolization combined
with local methotrexate for treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG
2010;117:990e6.
[26] Weimin W, Wenqing L. Effect of early pregnancy on a previous lower segment
caesarean section scar. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2002;77:201e7.
[27] Liang HS, Jeng CJ, Sheen TC, Lee FK, Yang YC, Tzeng CR. First trimester uterine
rupture from a placenta percreta: a case report. J Reprod Med 2003;48:474e8.
[28] Li SP, Wang W, Tang XL, Wang Y. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a case report. Chin
Med J 2004;117:316e7.
[29] Wang YL, Su TH, Chen HS. Operative laparoscopy for unruptured ectopic
pregnancy in a caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG 2006;113:1035e8.
[30] Yang MJ, Jeng MH. Combination of transarterial embolization of uterine arteries and conservative surgical treatment for pregnancy in a caesarean section scar: a report of 3 cases. J Reprod Med 2003;48:213e6.
[31] Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, Lin MY, Tsai YL, Hwang JL. Caesarean scar
pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:
247e53.
[32] Wang C, Tseng C. Primary evacuation therapy for cesarean scar pregnancy:
three new cases and review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:222e6.
[33] Flystra DL, Pound-Chang T, Miller MG, Cooper A, Miller KM. Ectopic pregnancy
within a caesarean delivery scar: a case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2002;187:302e4.
[34] Hasewaga J, Izuka K, Matsuoka R, Otsuki K, Sekizawa A, Okai T. Limitations of
conservative treatment for repeat caesarean scar pregnancy. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:310e1.
[35] Lee CL, Wang CJ, Chao A, Yen CF, Soong YK. Laparoscopic management of an
ectopic pregnancy in a previous caesarean section scar. Hum Reprod 1999;14:
1234e6.
[36] Wang CJ, Yuen LT, Yen CF, Lee CL, Soong YK. Three-dimensional power
Doppler ultrasound diagnosis and laparoscopic management of a pregnancy
in a previous caesarean scar. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2004;14:
399e402.
[37] Wang YL, Su TH, Chen HS. Laparoscopic management of an ectopic pregnancy
in a lower segment of caesarean scar: a review and case report. J Minim
Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:73e9.