Angular vs. interstitial pregnancy: A case report highlighting diagnostic nuances with stark management differences

BACKGROUNDIn the literature, the terms "angular", "interstitial" and "cornual" have often been inappropriately interchanged. The consequence is under-recognition of their differences as well as inaccurate imaging guidelines which do not reliably distinguish them as dist...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Case reports in women's health 2018, Vol.19, p.e00068-e00068
Hauptverfasser: Marfori, Cherie Q, Kotzen, Mollie
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BACKGROUNDIn the literature, the terms "angular", "interstitial" and "cornual" have often been inappropriately interchanged. The consequence is under-recognition of their differences as well as inaccurate imaging guidelines which do not reliably distinguish them as distinct entities. Angular pregnancies should be considered viable and may be managed to term. CASEA woman at 7w5d was transferred for surgical management of a presumed interstitial ectopic pregnancy. Sonography and MRI confirmed an eccentric fundal pregnancy with a thin myometrial mantle of 2-5 mm; the diagnosis of interstitial pregnancy was favored. Upon laparoscopy, the round ligament was displaced lateral to the pregnancy bulge and the diagnosis of angular pregnancy was thus apparent. The pregnancy was continued to term and delivered via repeat cesarean section without incident. CONCLUSIONAngular and interstitial pregnancies are different entities which cannot always be reliably distinguished via imaging alone. Diagnostic laparoscopy may be a final step in determining pregnancy location. Angular pregnancies should be considered potentially viable and may be managed to term.
ISSN:2214-9112
DOI:10.1016/j.crwh.2018.e00068