Research Article| Volume 241, P56-59, October 2019

Effectiveness, complications and reproductive outcome of selective chemoembolization with methotrexate followed by suction curettage for caesarean scar pregnancy - A prospective observational study



      Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy implanted in a previous caesarean scar. Selective chemoembolization with methotrexate (SCEM) followed by suction curettage (SC) is one of the treatment options for CSP. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness, complications and reproductive outcome of SCEM followed by SC in the treatment of CSP.

      Study design

      All cases of CSP treated with SCEM followed by SC between 2015 and 2018 were prospectively followed-up to assess short and long-term outcome. All patients hospitalized with the suspicion of CSP during the study period were included in the study. Gelatine sponge was used as embolic material to avoid permanent damage of the uterus and minimise the possible impact on fertility. Haemoglobin (Hb) and beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) levels, normalization of menstrual cycle, complications after the procedure and subsequent fertility were assessed.


      Twenty-two patients diagnosed with CSP underwent SCEM followed by SC. The procedure was effective in 20 cases (91%). In two cases additional SCEM was required before attempting SC due to persistent vascularity on ultrasound in one case and abnormal uterine bleeding in the second one. No complications were observed during the procedures, none of the patients required a hysterectomy. Follow-up ranged from 9 to 36 months. In short-term follow-up no significant complications occurred, only minor ailments such as uterine cramping and nausea were reported by 8 patients. In long-term follow-up 8 patients reported at least one complication, such as hypomenorrhea, amenorrhoea or were diagnosed with Asherman syndrome. Ten patients tried to conceive and 4 out of them achieved a pregnancy (all in less than 12 months) and delivered by caesarean sections between 35 and 39 weeks. One patient reported recurrent miscarriage.


      SCEM followed by SC appears to be an effective treatment option for CSP. The method seems to be safe in short-term follow-up. However, complications were observed in long-term follow-up. Therefore, patients should be informed about the risk of complications interfering with future fertility, such as intrauterine adhesions and/or amenorrhea.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Jurkovic D.
        • Hillaby K.
        • Woelfer B.
        • Lawrence A.
        • Salim R.
        • Elson C.J.
        First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2003; 21 (Mar [cited 2018 Sep 29] Available from:): 220-227
        • Timor-Tritsch I.E.
        • Monteagudo A.
        Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2012; 207 (Jul [cited 2018 Sep 29] Available from:): 14-29
        • Giampaolino P.
        • De Rosa N.
        • Morra I.
        • Bertrando A.
        • Sardo A.D.S.
        • Zizolfi B.
        • et al.
        Management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a single-institution retrospective review.
        Hindawi. 2018; 2018
        • Petersen K.B.
        • Ph D.
        • Hoffmann E.
        • Larsen R.
        • Ph D.
        Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies.
        Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2016; (Elsevier Inc. Available from:): 1-10
        • Li C.
        • Li C.
        • Feng D.
        • Jia C.
        • Liu B.
        • Zhan X.
        Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization versus systemic methotrexate for the management of cesarean scar pregnancy.
        Int J Gynecol Obstet [Internet]. 2011; 113 (Jun [cited 2018 Sep 30] Available from:): 178-182
        • Obstet A.G.
        • Liu G.
        • Wu J.
        • Cao J.
        • Xue Y.
        • Dai C.
        Comparison of three treatment strategies for cesarean scar pregnancy.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg2017
        • Wozniak S.
        • Pyra K.
        • Kłudka-Sternik M.
        • Czuczwar P.
        • Szkodziak P.
        • Paszkowski T.
        • et al.
        Uterine artery embolization using gelatin sponge particles performed due to massive vaginal bleeding caused by ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a case study.
        Ginekol Pol. 2013; 84
        • Zhuang Y.
        • Huang L.
        Uterine artery embolization compared with methotrexate for the management of pregnancy implanted within a cesarean scar.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2009; 201 (e1-152.e3. Aug [cited 2018 Dec 24] Available from:): 152
        • Maheux-lacroix S.
        • Li F.
        • Bujold E.
        • Nesbitt-hawes E.
        • Deans R.
        • et al.
        Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet]. 2019; (Elsevier Inc.; Available from:)
        • Li Y.
        • Wang W.
        • Yang T.
        • Wei X.
        • Yang X.
        Incorporating uterine artery embolization in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy following diagnostic ultrasonography.
        Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 134 (Available from:): 202-207
        • He Y.
        • Wu X.
        • Zhu Q.
        • Wu X.
        • Feng L.
        • Wu X.
        • et al.
        Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy vs. uterine curettage in the uterine artery embolization-based management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.
        2014: 1-8
        • Mohan P.P.
        • Hamblin M.H.
        • Vogelzang R.L.
        Uterine artery embolization and its effect on fertility.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol [Internet]. 2013; 24 (Jul [cited 2018 Dec 9] Available from:): 925-930
        • Arthur R.
        • Kachura J.
        • Liu G.
        • Chan C.
        • Shapiro H.
        Laparoscopic myomectomy versus uterine artery embolization: long-term impact on markers of ovarian reserve.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Canada [Internet]. 2014; 36 (Elsevier Masson SAS Available from:): 240-247
        • Czuczwar P.
        • Stepniak A.
        • Milart P.
        • Paszkowski T.
        • Wozniak S.
        Comparison of the influence of three fibroid treatment options: supracervical hysterectomy, ulipristal acetate and uterine artery embolization on ovarian reserve - an observational study.
        J Ovarian Res [Internet]. BioMed Central. 2018; 11 (Jun 1 [cited 2018 Dec 10]; Available from:): 45
        • Chen H.
        • Zhou J.
        • Wang H.
        • Tan W.
        • Yao M.
        • Wang X.
        The Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy with Uterine Artery Embolization and Curettage as Compared to Transvaginal Hysterotomy.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 214 (Available from:): 44-49
        • Gilman A.R.
        • Dewar K.M.
        • Rhone S.A.
        • Fluker M.R.
        Intrauterine adhesions following miscarriage: look and learn.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016; 38 (Available from:): 453-457
        • Yin X.
        • Su S.
        • Dong B.
        • Ban Y.
        • Li C.
        • Sun B.
        Angiographic uterine artery chemoembolization followed by vacuum aspiration: an e Y cient and safe treatment for managing complicated cesarean scar pregnancy.
        2012: 1313-1318
        • Krissi H.
        • Hiersch L.
        • Stolovitch N.
        • Nitke S.
        Outcome, complications and future fertility in women treated with uterine artery embolization and methotrexate for non-tubal ectopic pregnancy.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182 (Available from:): 172-176