Home|Journals|Articles by Year|Audio Abstracts
 

Original Research



A retrospective comparison of systemic and local methotrexate therapy applied before uterine curettage in caesarean scar pregnancy

Ugurkan Erkayiran, Jan Bozkurt, Tufan Arslanca.




Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the results of patients who were treated with different treatment modalities due to cesarean scar pregnancy in terms of treatment success, development of complications, and additional treatment need. Patients underwent dilatation-curettage (D/C) only group 1 (n=22), systemic methotrexate was applied on the first and fourth day and D/C was applied on the seventh day, group 2 (n=27) and those who received intracavitary methotrexate on the first day and D/C on the seventh-day group 3 (n=33) to be divided into three groups. The demographic information of the patients, length of stay, response to treatment, complication rates, and whether there was any difference in factors associated with the development of complications were compared between the groups. When the patients were evaluated, it was seen that those in group 2 had a lower gestational week (p=0.011). In addition, it was observed that the patients in group 2 had a significantly longer hospital stay (p0.05). In our study, we observed that the possibility of complication development among the three methods was less in patients who underwent intracavitary methotrexate, but we could not statistically determine that this situation was significant. We also found that the use of systemic methotrexate is the most disadvantageous method in terms of both the length of stay and the development of complications.

Key words: Caesarean scar pregnancy, systemic methotrexate, intracavitary methotrexate, dilatation/curettage






Full-text options


Share this Article


Online Article Submission
• ejmanager.com




ejPort - eJManager.com
Refer & Earn
JournalList
About BiblioMed
License Information
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

The articles in Bibliomed are open access articles licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.