Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Managed by Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) Versus Hysteroscopic Surgery

Scar; Previous Cesarean Section

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a relative new type of ectopic pregnancy where the fertilized egg is implanted in the muscle or fibrous tissue of the scar after a previous cesarean section. A recent review amounts almost 31 different treatment modalities for CSP. A broad spectrum of options represents a real challenge for the health care provider. The choice may be made among expectant management, medical treatment, local treatment and surgical approach, also combined together. There is insufficient evidence to recommend any one specific intervention over another for caesarean scar pregnancy. Future studies are needed to define the optimal management of pregnancy for caesarean section scars. Thus, we aim to compare the success rate of two different treatment of CSP: the medical management by using two-dose of Methotrexate (MTX) followed by dilation and evacuation (D&E) compared to single dose of two-dose of Methotrexate followed by hysperoscopic approach.

Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a relative new type of ectopic pregnancy where the fertilized egg is implanted in the muscle or fibrous tissue of the scar after a previous cesarean section. Since the first description of cesarean scar pregnancy in 1978, its frequency has increased dramatically due to the significant increase in the percentage of cesarean section and development of transvaginal (TV) ultrasonography (US). The overall incidence of CSP is 1 in 1,800 to 1 in 2,200 pregnancies, it means 0.05-0.04% of all pregnancies. In women after a cesarean section, the frequency of CSP is approximately 0.15%, which constitutes 6.1% of all ectopic pregnancies in patients after at least one cesarean operation. The risk factors that favour implantation in the CS scar are not well understood; therefore, there are no guidelines for the practicing physicians to determine the women at risk. Uterine surgery, anomalous healing of the scar, previous preterm CS without labour or a term elective CS, breech presentation at previous CS short intervals between the CSP and last pregnancy, last pregnancy ended with abortion may be some of the risk factors for CSP. Although the 15% of CSPs remain undiagnosed, developed egographic techniques and several new US signs of CSP invasiveness are allowing ever better diagnoses. Cali et al. tested the hypothesis the relationship between the gestational sac of the CSP, previous caesarean scar and the anterior uterine wall can be used to predict the evolution of these cases. In order to do this, they propose a new sonographic sign, the cross-over sign (COS) . This echographic sign is reflected in the clinical presentation of the CSP, so we can divide the patients into two different groups: type I endogenic type characterized by the COS2 insertion, ance type II exogenic type characterized by COS1 insertion, the latter with worse outcomes in term of maternal morbidity and mortality. A recent review amounts almost 31 different treatment modalities for CSP. A broad spectrum of options represents a real challenge for the health care provider. The choice may be made among expectant management, medical treatment, local treatment and surgical approach, also combined together. There is insufficient evidence to recommend any one specific intervention over another for caesarean scar pregnancy. Future studies are needed to define the optimal management of pregnancy for caesarean section scars. Thus, we aim to compare the success rate of two different treatment of CSP: the medical management by using two-dose of Methotrexate (MTX) followed by dilation and evacuation (D&E) compared to single dose of two-dose of Methotrexate followed by hysperoscopic approach.

Italy