Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A Meta-analysis of the Chinese Population
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed by curettage or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage are relatively effective methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), which can provide a high success rate and repregnancy while reducing blood loss and adverse events. Therefore,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2023-03, Vol.30 (3), p.180-191 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 191 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 180 |
| container_title | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Li, Yanhui Hua, Cuiju |
| description | High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed by curettage or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage are relatively effective methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), which can provide a high success rate and repregnancy while reducing blood loss and adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pregnancy outcomes of HIFU groups versus UAE groups with CSP.
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched to find studies that compared the therapeutic effects of HIFU groups versus UAE groups.
Our primary end points were blood loss, adverse events, success rate, and repregnancy. We implemented random-effects models or fixed-effects models to evaluate the pooled data.
Thirty-four eligible items were included in studies. The blood loss was significantly reduced in HIFU groups compared with UAE groups (standardized mean difference = −1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21 to −0.68; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.015 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2742659358</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1553465022010093</els_id><sourcerecordid>2742659358</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-63b2230a3291811a67f236fd118f4190ee79d23d5f0c0b26e5df74e7ed8cd8f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEoqXwAhyQj1wS_Cd2EgkJrVYtrVTUSmXPlmNPdr1K7MV2kMJz8YB4u6XixGk-ab75Zka_onhPcEUwEZ_21X6y24piSitCKkz4i-KccM7KWoju5bPm-Kx4E-MeY9ZgLF4XZ0zUNW04Pi9-30R0bbe70roELtq0oCuv5wgGbcYUVPSzM-hhPkCwPqDk0SZl6QCtQhYLupx6P9pfKlnvkHVoDVEFUA49aBXQfYCtU04vSD3G9BF-zODSP427OWk_QfyCVugbJFUqp8Yl2oj8gNIO0HqX10VA9_4wj4973havBjVGePdUL4rN1eX39XV5e_f1Zr26LTXjIpWC9ZQyrBjtSEuIEs1AmRgMIe1Qkw4DNJ2hzPABa9xTAdwMTQ0NmFabdujYRfHxlHsIPp8dk5xs1DCOyoGfo6RNTQXvGG-zlZ6sOvgYAwzyEOykwiIJlkdaci-PtOSRliREZlp56MNT_txPYJ5H_uLJhs8nA-Qvf1oIMmoLToOxAXSSxtv_5f8B6a-pew</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2742659358</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A Meta-analysis of the Chinese Population</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Li, Yanhui ; Hua, Cuiju</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Yanhui ; Hua, Cuiju</creatorcontrib><description>High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed by curettage or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage are relatively effective methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), which can provide a high success rate and repregnancy while reducing blood loss and adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pregnancy outcomes of HIFU groups versus UAE groups with CSP.
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched to find studies that compared the therapeutic effects of HIFU groups versus UAE groups.
Our primary end points were blood loss, adverse events, success rate, and repregnancy. We implemented random-effects models or fixed-effects models to evaluate the pooled data.
Thirty-four eligible items were included in studies. The blood loss was significantly reduced in HIFU groups compared with UAE groups (standardized mean difference = −1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21 to −0.68; p <.001). Significantly fewer adverse events occurred in the HIFU groups than in UAE groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36, 95% CI, 0.23–0.57; p <.001). The success rate of HIFU groups was higher than that of UAE groups (OR = 1.56, 95% CI, 1.05–2.32; p = .03). There were more pregnancies in HIFU groups than in UAE groups (OR = 1.64, 95% CI, 1.28–2.11; p <.001).
In the CSP, the effect of HIFU groups was better than that of UAE groups: less blood loss, high success rate, fewer adverse events, and favorable fertility protection. Thus, it is a promising therapeutic method for patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-4650</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-4669</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.015</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36442750</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Cicatrix - etiology ; Cicatrix - therapy ; East Asian People ; Female ; High-intensity focused ultrasound ; Humans ; Noninvasive ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Pregnancy, Ectopic - etiology ; Pregnancy, Ectopic - therapy ; Repregnancy ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Uterine artery embolization ; Uterine Artery Embolization - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2023-03, Vol.30 (3), p.180-191</ispartof><rights>2022</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-63b2230a3291811a67f236fd118f4190ee79d23d5f0c0b26e5df74e7ed8cd8f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-63b2230a3291811a67f236fd118f4190ee79d23d5f0c0b26e5df74e7ed8cd8f93</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9921-4425</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.015$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36442750$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Yanhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hua, Cuiju</creatorcontrib><title>Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A Meta-analysis of the Chinese Population</title><title>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</title><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><description>High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed by curettage or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage are relatively effective methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), which can provide a high success rate and repregnancy while reducing blood loss and adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pregnancy outcomes of HIFU groups versus UAE groups with CSP.
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched to find studies that compared the therapeutic effects of HIFU groups versus UAE groups.
Our primary end points were blood loss, adverse events, success rate, and repregnancy. We implemented random-effects models or fixed-effects models to evaluate the pooled data.
Thirty-four eligible items were included in studies. The blood loss was significantly reduced in HIFU groups compared with UAE groups (standardized mean difference = −1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21 to −0.68; p <.001). Significantly fewer adverse events occurred in the HIFU groups than in UAE groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36, 95% CI, 0.23–0.57; p <.001). The success rate of HIFU groups was higher than that of UAE groups (OR = 1.56, 95% CI, 1.05–2.32; p = .03). There were more pregnancies in HIFU groups than in UAE groups (OR = 1.64, 95% CI, 1.28–2.11; p <.001).
In the CSP, the effect of HIFU groups was better than that of UAE groups: less blood loss, high success rate, fewer adverse events, and favorable fertility protection. Thus, it is a promising therapeutic method for patients.</description><subject>Cicatrix - etiology</subject><subject>Cicatrix - therapy</subject><subject>East Asian People</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>High-intensity focused ultrasound</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Noninvasive</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Outcome</subject><subject>Pregnancy, Ectopic - etiology</subject><subject>Pregnancy, Ectopic - therapy</subject><subject>Repregnancy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Uterine artery embolization</subject><subject>Uterine Artery Embolization - methods</subject><issn>1553-4650</issn><issn>1553-4669</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEoqXwAhyQj1wS_Cd2EgkJrVYtrVTUSmXPlmNPdr1K7MV2kMJz8YB4u6XixGk-ab75Zka_onhPcEUwEZ_21X6y24piSitCKkz4i-KccM7KWoju5bPm-Kx4E-MeY9ZgLF4XZ0zUNW04Pi9-30R0bbe70roELtq0oCuv5wgGbcYUVPSzM-hhPkCwPqDk0SZl6QCtQhYLupx6P9pfKlnvkHVoDVEFUA49aBXQfYCtU04vSD3G9BF-zODSP427OWk_QfyCVugbJFUqp8Yl2oj8gNIO0HqX10VA9_4wj4973havBjVGePdUL4rN1eX39XV5e_f1Zr26LTXjIpWC9ZQyrBjtSEuIEs1AmRgMIe1Qkw4DNJ2hzPABa9xTAdwMTQ0NmFabdujYRfHxlHsIPp8dk5xs1DCOyoGfo6RNTQXvGG-zlZ6sOvgYAwzyEOykwiIJlkdaci-PtOSRliREZlp56MNT_txPYJ5H_uLJhs8nA-Qvf1oIMmoLToOxAXSSxtv_5f8B6a-pew</recordid><startdate>202303</startdate><enddate>202303</enddate><creator>Li, Yanhui</creator><creator>Hua, Cuiju</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-4425</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202303</creationdate><title>Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A Meta-analysis of the Chinese Population</title><author>Li, Yanhui ; Hua, Cuiju</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-63b2230a3291811a67f236fd118f4190ee79d23d5f0c0b26e5df74e7ed8cd8f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Cicatrix - etiology</topic><topic>Cicatrix - therapy</topic><topic>East Asian People</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>High-intensity focused ultrasound</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Noninvasive</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Outcome</topic><topic>Pregnancy, Ectopic - etiology</topic><topic>Pregnancy, Ectopic - therapy</topic><topic>Repregnancy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Uterine artery embolization</topic><topic>Uterine Artery Embolization - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Yanhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hua, Cuiju</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Yanhui</au><au>Hua, Cuiju</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A Meta-analysis of the Chinese Population</atitle><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><date>2023-03</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>180</spage><epage>191</epage><pages>180-191</pages><issn>1553-4650</issn><eissn>1553-4669</eissn><abstract>High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) followed by curettage or uterine artery embolization (UAE) followed by curettage are relatively effective methods for cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP), which can provide a high success rate and repregnancy while reducing blood loss and adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pregnancy outcomes of HIFU groups versus UAE groups with CSP.
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched to find studies that compared the therapeutic effects of HIFU groups versus UAE groups.
Our primary end points were blood loss, adverse events, success rate, and repregnancy. We implemented random-effects models or fixed-effects models to evaluate the pooled data.
Thirty-four eligible items were included in studies. The blood loss was significantly reduced in HIFU groups compared with UAE groups (standardized mean difference = −1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21 to −0.68; p <.001). Significantly fewer adverse events occurred in the HIFU groups than in UAE groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36, 95% CI, 0.23–0.57; p <.001). The success rate of HIFU groups was higher than that of UAE groups (OR = 1.56, 95% CI, 1.05–2.32; p = .03). There were more pregnancies in HIFU groups than in UAE groups (OR = 1.64, 95% CI, 1.28–2.11; p <.001).
In the CSP, the effect of HIFU groups was better than that of UAE groups: less blood loss, high success rate, fewer adverse events, and favorable fertility protection. Thus, it is a promising therapeutic method for patients.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>36442750</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.015</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-4425</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1553-4650 |
| ispartof | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2023-03, Vol.30 (3), p.180-191 |
| issn | 1553-4650 1553-4669 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2742659358 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Cicatrix - etiology Cicatrix - therapy East Asian People Female High-intensity focused ultrasound Humans Noninvasive Pregnancy Pregnancy Outcome Pregnancy, Ectopic - etiology Pregnancy, Ectopic - therapy Repregnancy Retrospective Studies Treatment Outcome Uterine artery embolization Uterine Artery Embolization - methods |
| title | Is High-intensity Focused Ultrasound Superior to Uterine Artery Embolization in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes? A Meta-analysis of the Chinese Population |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T19%3A18%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20High-intensity%20Focused%20Ultrasound%20Superior%20to%20Uterine%20Artery%20Embolization%20in%20Cesarean%20Scar%20Pregnancy%20and%20Subsequent%20Pregnancy%20Outcomes?%20A%20Meta-analysis%20of%20the%20Chinese%20Population&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20minimally%20invasive%20gynecology&rft.au=Li,%20Yanhui&rft.date=2023-03&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=180&rft.epage=191&rft.pages=180-191&rft.issn=1553-4650&rft.eissn=1553-4669&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jmig.2022.11.015&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2742659358%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2742659358&rft_id=info:pmid/36442750&rft_els_id=S1553465022010093&rfr_iscdi=true |