Schwangerschaften in der myometranen Sectionarbe

Narbengraviditäten stellen eine diagnostische Herausforderung und eine potenziell lebensgefährliche Komplikation in der Frühschwangerschaft nach vorausgegangener Uterusoperation (meist Sectio) dar. Aktuell gibt es auch international für diese sehr seltene Form der extrauterinen Schwangerschaft keine eindeutigen therapeutischen Empfehlungen. Die unterschiedlichen publizierten Behandlungsmaßnahmen verdeutlichen diese therapeutische Unsicherheit.

• Literatur

• 1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Pressemitteilung Nr. 348 vom 04.10.2017. Online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2017/10/PD17_348_231.html Stand: 27.07.2018
• 2 Statistisches Bundesamt. Krankenhausentbindungen in Deutschland Jahre 1991 bis 2016. Online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/Tabellen/KrankenhausentbindeungenKaiserschnitt.html Stand: 27.07.2018
• 3 Kauffman RP. Treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: another chapter in the fertility preservation saga. Fertil Steril 2016; 105: 895-896
• 4 Erbslöh J. Anatomie, Physiologie und Pathologie der Kaiserschnittnarbe mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres funktionellen Verhaltens bei späteren Schwangerschaften und Geburten. Archiv für Gynäkologie 1942; 174: 259-328
• 5 Park IY, Kim MR, Lee HN. et al. Risk factors for Korean women to develop an isthmocele after a cesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018; 18: 162
• 6 Tower AM, Frishman GN. Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20: 562-572
• 7 Cali G, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J. et al. Outcome of Cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51: 169-175
• 8 Larsen JV, Solomon MH. Pregnancy in a uterine scar sacculus–an unusual cause of postabortal haemorrhage. A case report. S Afr Med J 1978; 53: 142-143
• 9 Voet LLFV, Vaate AMJB, Heymans MW. et al. Prognostic Factors for Niche Development in the Uterine Caesarean Section Scar. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 213: 31-32
• 10 Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 731-738
• 11 Kanat-Pektas M, Bodur S, Dundar O. et al. Systematic review: What is the best first-line approach for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy?. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 55: 263-269
• 12 Pedraszewski P, Wlazlak E, Panek W. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy – a new challenge for obstetricians. J Ultrason 2018; 18: 56-62
• 13 Chiang AJ, La V, Chou CP. et al. Ectopic pregnancy in a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2388-2389
• 14 Timor-Tritsch IE, Khatib N, Monteagudo A. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancies: experience of 60 cases. J Ultrasound Med 2015; 34: 601-610
• 15 Washburn EE, Pocius K, Carusi D. Outcomes of nonsurgical versus surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancies in the first trimester. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 533-541 doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4466-x
• 16 Raio L, Mueller M. Narbendehiszenz nach Sectio: Was tun?. Frauenheilkunde aktuell 2012; 2: 4-11
• 17 Harb HM, Knight M, Bottomley C. et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK: a national cohort study. BJOG 2018;
• 18 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R. et al. The diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 44.e1-44.e13
• 19 Washburn EE, Pocius K, Carusi D. Outcomes of nonsurgical versus surgical treatment of cesarean scar pregnancies in the first trimester. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 533-541
• 20 Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Bujold E. et al. Cesarean Scar Pregnancies: A Systematic Review of Treatment Options. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 915-925
• 21 Fenerty S, Gupta S, Anoakar J. et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Appl Radiol 2017; 46: 20-21
• 22 Nezhat C, Falik R, Li A. Surgical management of niche, isthmocele, uteroperitoneal fistula, or cesarean scar defect: a critical rebirth in the medical literature. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 69-71
• 23 Le A, Li M, Xu Y. et al. Different Surgical Approaches to 313 Cesarean Scar Pregnancies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;
• 24 Jayaram P, Okunoye G, Al Ibrahim AA. et al. Expectant management of caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review. J Perinat Med 2018; 46: 365-372
• 25 Dhillon AS, Sood S. Ceasarean scar pregnancies, diagnosis and management. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2018; 7: 1592-1596
• 26 Birch Petersen K, Hoffmann E, Rifbjerg Larsen C. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. Fertil Steril 2016; 105: 958-967
• 27 Li YR, Xiao SS, Wan YJ. et al. Analysis of the efficacy of three treatment options for cesarean scar pregnancy management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40: 2146-2151
• 28 Bodur S, Ozdamar O, Kilic S. et al. The efficacy of the systemic methotrexate treatment in caesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: A quantitative review of English literature. J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 35: 290-296
• 29 Osada H, Teramoto S, Kaijima H. et al. A Novel Treatment for Cervical and Cesarean Section Scar Pregnancies by Transvaginal Injection of Absolute Ethanol to Trophoblasts – Its Efficacy in 19 Cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;
• 30 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Bennett TA. et al. A new minimally invasive treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy and cervical pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215: 351.e1-351.e8
• 31 Xiao J, Zhang S, Wang F. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: noninvasive and effective treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 356.e1-356.e7
• 32 Xiao J, Shi Z, Zhou J. et al. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Treatment with High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound and Uterine Artery Embolization. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43: 640-647
• 33 Liu G, Wu J, Cao J. et al. Comparison of three treatment strategies for cesarean scar pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296: 383-389
• 34 Tumenjargal A, Tokue H, Kishi H. et al. Uterine Artery Embolization Combined with Dilation and Curettage for the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Efficacy and Future Fertility. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018; 41: 1165-1173 doi:10.1007/s00270-018-1934-z
• 35 Giampaolino P, De Rosa N, Morra I. et al. Management of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Single-Institution Retrospective Review. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 6486407
• 36 Gao L, Hou YY, Sun F. et al. A retrospective comparative study evaluating the efficacy of adding intra-arterial methotrexate infusion to uterine artery embolisation followed by curettage for cesarean scar pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 297: 1205-1211
• 37 Chai ZY, Yu L, Liu MM. et al. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Local Lauromacrogol Injection Combined with Aspiration for Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Novel Treatment. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 83: 306-312
• 38 Litwicka K, Greco E. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a review of management options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013; 25: 456-461
• 39 Zhang Y, Duan H, Cheng JM. et al. Treatment options to terminate persistent cesarean scar pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013; 75: 115-119
• 40 Wu X, Xue X, Wu X. et al. Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a cohort study. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7: 2793-2803
• 41 Mahgoub S, Gabriele V, Faller E. et al. Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: Laparoscopic Resection and Total Scar Dehiscence Repair. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25: 297-298