Next Article in Journal
Overview of Lung Ultrasound in Pediatric Cardiology
Next Article in Special Issue
Our Experience in Using the Endovascular Therapy in the Management of Hemorrhages in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Subjective Life Satisfaction of South Korean Adults: Bayesian Nomogram Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pregnancy in a Non-Communicating Rudimentary Horn of Unicornuate Uterus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/diagnostics12030762
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Case Report

Successful Full-Term Delivery via Selective Ectopic Embryo Reduction Accompanied by Uterine Cerclage in a Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review

by
Hyoeun Kim
†,
Ji Hye Koh
†,
Jihee Lee
,
Yeongeun Sim
,
Sang-Hun Lee
,
Soo-Jeong Lee
,
Jun-Woo Ahn
,
Hyun-Jin Roh
and
Jeong Sook Kim
*
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan 44033, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(3), 762; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030762
Submission received: 27 February 2022 / Revised: 17 March 2022 / Accepted: 18 March 2022 / Published: 21 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Management for Obstetric and Gynecologic Diseases 2.0)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy (HCSP) is a combination of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and intrauterine pregnancy (IUP). Cesarean scar pregnancy is accompanied by life-threatening complications, such as uterine rupture and massive bleeding. Herein, we present a case of HCSP treated with selective potassium chloride injection into the CSP under ultrasonography in association with uterine cerclage to control vaginal bleeding; this led to a successful IUP preservation and full-term delivery. Additionally, we will review several previous reports on HCSP management, including our case.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy (HCSP) is a rare cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) combined with an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), and is accompanied by life-threatening complications, such as uterine rupture and massive bleeding [1,2]. The incidence of HCSP in natural pregnancy is extremely low; however, the number of cesarean sections and the expansion of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have gradually increased [3]. Nevertheless, the preservation of concurrent IUP and fertility remains a challenge because of the absence of a standard protocol for HCSP management [2,3]. Herein, we present a case of HCSP that was treated to preserve the IUP and the patient’s fertility. In the first trimester, a selective ectopic embryo reduction in the CSP was performed using intrathoracic potassium chloride (KCl) injection and embryo aspiration. In the second trimester, the remaining gestational tissue growth in the CSP, as well as the occurrence of vaginal bleeding, was controlled via a uterine cervical cerclage. Finally, full-term delivery was successfully achieved without uterine arterial embolization or hysterectomy by repeated cesarean sections.

2. Case Report

A 36-year-old woman (gravida 2, para 1) was transferred from a local hospital because of a cesarean ectopic pregnancy with IUP. The patient underwent in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) using two ova. Two years ago, she delivered a baby via a lower segment cesarean section. Ultrasonography at 6+1 gestational weeks (GW) revealed two gestational sacs; one in the uterine fundus and the other in the anterior uterine isthmus (Figure 1a,b). Both had fetal cardiac activity, and the mother had no vaginal bleeding or abdominal pain.
The patient decided to undergo selective embryo CSP reduction to preserve the normal fetus. Under spinal anesthesia, a uterine sound was inserted to reach the CSP (the anterior uterine isthmus) in the uterus at 6+3 GW under ultrasonographic guidance (Figure 2a). A 20 cm long 18-gauge spinal needle, which was bent at an equal angle to the sound, was then guided along to reach the CSP (Figure 2b). About 0.1 mL of 2 mEq/mL KCl was slowly loaded via the bent 18-gauge spinal needle into the fetal heart of the CSP (Figure 2c). After cardiac arrest of the CSP, the expired embryo was completely aspirated without affecting the placenta around the CSP. No immediate complications were observed in either the mother or the normal IUP after treatment.
The following day, sonography showed an absence of cardiac activity in the CSP, whereas the IUP was alive. Five days after the procedure, a 4 × 1.7 cm placenta with hematoma was detected at the reduction site using sonography, while the normal fetus in the uterine fundus was stable (Figure 3).
A sonographic examination at 10 GW revealed that the placenta around the reduction site had grown into the uterine cervix, resulting in intermittent vaginal spotting and a shortening of the cervical length. Considering a cervical length of less than 10 mm and the protrusion of the remnant placenta into the internal os (Figure 4a), a uterine cervical cerclage was inserted at 12 GW by placing the cervical intruding placenta inside the uterine cavity. The purpose of the cerclage was to control the growth of the remaining placenta in the CSP, as well as vaginal bleeding (Figure 4b,c). McDonald operation with double ligations using braided polyester thread (EthibondTM, Ethicon, New Jersey were implemented in the cervical cerclage [4]. A previous retrospective study reported that the braided thread suture in the cervical cerclage showed an improvement in neonatal survival, the prevention of preterm birth before 28 GW, less PPROM, and maternal febrile morbidity, compared to Mersilene tape (Mersilene™, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA). [5]. Ultrasonography at 24+3 GW showed dilated and tortuous blood vessels encompassing the lesion (10 × 6 × 3 cm3 in volume), suggestive of an enlarged arteriovenous malformation (AVM) (Figure 4d). During the antenatal period, there were no severe complications, including preterm labor and short cervical length.
The delivery was performed at another hospital for private reasons. A healthy female baby weighing 2415 g was delivered via elective cesarean section at 37+6 GW. After the delivery of the baby, massive bleeding developed at the site of the CSP. The RGT was removed, and the bleeding focus was controlled by multiple sutures. Her vital signs were stable with a red blood cell transfusion. She did not need further intensive care. The RGT was histologically confirmed as an AVM.

3. Discussion

Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy is one of the rarest heterotopic pregnancies, and it requires the careful management of a viable IUP [3,6,7]. The incidence of heterotopic pregnancy is estimated to be 1 in 30,000 deliveries. However, ART has increased the incidence of heterotopic pregnancies to 1% [3,8]. Attempts have been made to identify the cause of CSP at a molecular level. For example, a previous study showed that the endometrial expression of the integrin β3 subunit and leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) was positively correlated with endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation [9]. In particular, their expression in the cesarean scar was significantly higher than in the endometrium of the uterine cavity. Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy poses a higher risk of antenatal events, such as vaginal bleeding, fetal demise of the IUP, and uterine rupture [1,7,10,11,12].
Our comprehensive literature survey of 46 HCSP cases published in journals confirmed that 32 patients reported HCSP related to ART (Table 1) [1,2,3,6,7,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. Advances in ultrasonography have facilitated the early detection of HCSP, even during the embryonic period [6,22]. Although a standard protocol for managing HSCP remains inconclusive, most procedures focus on the selective reduction of the ectopic CSP [2,31]. The treatment modality for selective embryo/fetal reduction usually involves either an ultrasound (US)-guided intervention or surgical intervention (or both). Among the 42 cases, from which four artificial abortions were excluded, 19 (45%) cases were expectant management and 16 (38%) cases were US-guided interventions (Table 1). Surgical intervention accounted for only seven cases (17%). The US-guided interventions included the injection of embryocidal drugs, gestational sac (GS) aspiration, or a combined procedure. The US-guided interventions were performed between 8+2 and 10+2 GW (median: 8+4 GW). Potassium chloride was used in all injections, except for one case where methotrexate (MTX), which can cause teratogenicity to the normal IUP, was co-administered [18]. The KCl injection facilitated the spontaneous regression/detachment of the demised CSP; however, 12 cases among the US-guided interventions reported that the remnant gestational tissue (RGT) still existed. The persistence of RGT in CSP can lead to various complications, such as vaginal bleeding, probably due to its vascular characteristics [1,2,7,13,14,15,18,20,21,22,25]. Indeed, seven cases reported some problematic concerns (Table 1). For example, four cases documented vaginal bleeding after the intervention. Three cases described the development of RGT into AVM, among which one case was accompanied by a morbidly adherent placenta (MAP) that eventually required a forced hysterectomy [25]. The other RGT-to-AVM case involved a friable vascular mass with dilated vessels in a repeat cesarean section, in which uterine artery embolization was performed to control bleeding [22].
As described before, US-guided intervention can lead to RGT persistence, which can develop into AVM, accompanied by various complications, including vaginal bleeding, weakness of the scar site, or incomplete scar rupture. Sonography-guided selective CSP embryo reduction, which was successfully employed in our case, has been recommended for HCSP management because of its easy manipulation, high IUP success rate, and fewer complications, although it cannot exclude RGT persistence [33]. We implemented cervical cerclage after a selective CSP embryo reduction to prevent cervical shortening caused by AVM; this eventually controlled vaginal bleeding and promoted a successful full-term delivery. It can be speculated that surgical cerclage may tighten the loosened cervical canal, counteract the outward pressure formed by AVM, and preclude massive hemorrhage during the pregnancy (Figure 2c). Although a standard procedure has not been established, the first application of cervical cerclage in HCSP management in our case was helpful in managing fertility and IUP survival, as well as in reducing complications.
The fundamental surgical intervention for ectopic CSP is the direct excision of the ectopic mass at the cesarean scar via an open laparotomy, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or dilatation and curettage. Our literature review identified seven cases of surgical intervention. The surgical removal of CSP is a feasible way to prevent antenatal complications, such as vaginal bleeding and RGT growth [10,30]. Moreover, pelviscopic excision can reinforce the lower uterine segment [30]. An open laparotomy would provide more security to the previous scar because the extent of the operation field becomes broader and the operator can handle profuse bleeding more easily [21]. It is of note that the surgical approach for RGT removal should be considered cautiously in terms of preserving fertility. One patient experienced uterine rupture, and the normal fetus ended with early preterm birth before 24 weeks, even after surgical repair [5]. Another case involved laparoscopic excision after a US-guided intervention, owing to the growth of an ectopic mass and MAP-like sonographic findings. However, the surgery resulted in a hysterectomy because of uncontrolled bleeding [23].
Another option for HCSP was expectant management (19 cases) [4,18,25,28]. Nine cases confirmed the absence of a heartbeat in their CSPs, whereas seven cases reported live births and two cases did not. Among the two deaths, one was an induced abortion due to the premature preterm rupture of the membrane in early IUP, and the other was a uterine rupture accompanied by severe bleeding at 12 GW. The latter case involved a laparotomy for repair, but the IUP did not survive [28]. Among the 10 cases with a heartbeat in their CSPs, three reported miscarriages in the CSP but live IUPs were delivered [28]. Additionally, one case documented massive bleeding at eight GW during expectant management and underwent hysteroscopic excision [28]. Two vital babies from CSPs were successfully delivered in two cases at 37 and 40 GW [28]. However, severe postpartum bleeding due to placenta accreta occurred in one case, which was managed by the excision of the uterine anterior lower segment and uterine artery ligation. The other patient also had focal placenta accreta [28]. One case reported the implementation of expectant management for a successful delivery of twins [4]. Nevertheless, a recent study on the association between poor obstetric outcomes and HCSP demonstrated that the gestational age at treatment and a higher number of previous CSs were related to antepartum and postpartum hemorrhage, irrespective of the treatment mode [29].

4. Conclusions

As described before, US-guided intervention can lead to RGT persistence, which can develop into AVM, accompanied by various complications, including vaginal bleeding, weakness of the scar site, or incomplete scar rupture. Sonography-guided selective CSP embryo reduction, which was successfully employed in our case, has been recommended for HCSP management because of its easy manipulation, high IUP success rate, and fewer complications, although it cannot exclude RGT persistence [30]. Herein, we implemented a cervical cerclage after a selective CSP embryo reduction to prevent cervical shortening caused by AVM; this eventually controlled vaginal bleeding and promoted a successful full-term delivery. It can be speculated that surgical cerclage may tighten the loosened cervical canal, counteract the outward pressure formed by AVM, and preclude massive hemorrhage during the pregnancy (Figure 2c). Although a standard procedure has not been established, the first application of cervical cerclage in HCSP management in our case was helpful in managing fertility and IUP survival, as well as in reducing complications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S.K. and J.H.K.; methodology, J.S.K. and J.H.K.; software, J.L. and Y.S.; validation, Y.S.; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation, J.L.; resources, J.H.K.; data curation, Y.S. and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.K. and J.H.K.; writing—review and editing, J.S.K. and J.H.K.; visualization, Y.S.; supervision, J.S.K.; project administration, S.-H.L., J.-W.A., S.-J.L. and H.-J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this case study.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used in this study are available from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Jong Kwan Jun (Seoul National University Hospital, South Korea) for his helpful advice during the preparation of our manuscript; he also successfully completed the delivery of our patient.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, C.N.; Chen, C.K.; Wang, H.S.; Chiueh, H.Y.; Soong, Y.K. Successful management of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy combined with intrauterine pregnancy after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2007, 88, 706.e13–706.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yu, H.; Luo, H.; Zhao, F.; Liu, X.; Wang, X. Successful selective reduction of a heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy in the second trimester: A case report and review of the literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016, 16, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Ugurlucan, F.G.; Bastu, E.; Dogan, M.; Kalelioglu, I.; Alanya, S.; Has, R. Management of cesarean heterotopic pregnancy with transvaginal ultrasound-guided potassium chloride injection and gestational sac aspiration, and review of the literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2012, 19, 671–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Berghella, V.; Szychowski, J.M.; Owen, J.; Hankins, G.; Iams, J.D.; Sheffield, J.S.; Perez-Delboy, A.; Wing, D.A.; Guzman, E.R.; Consortium, V.U.T. Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012, 25, 2287–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bernard, L.; Pereira, L.; Berghella, V.; Rust, O.; Mittal, S.; Daly, S.; Vaarasmaki, M.; Cotter, A.; Gomez, R.; Prasertcharoensuk, W.; et al. Effect of suture material on outcome of cerclage in women with a dilated cervix in the 2nd trimester: Results from the expectant management compared to physical exam-indicated cerclage (EM-PEC) international cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 195, S103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, M.L.; Jun, H.S.; Kim, J.Y.; Seong, S.J.; Cha, D.H. Successful full-term twin deliveries in heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy in a spontaneous cycle with expectant management. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2014, 40, 1415–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lincenberg, K.R.; Behrman, E.R.; Bembry, J.S.; Kovac, C.M. Uterine Rupture with Cesarean Scar Heterotopic Pregnancy with Survival of the Intrauterine Twin. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 2016, 6832094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Lee, J.S.; Cha, H.H.; Han, A.R.; Lee, S.G.; Seong, W.J. Heterotopic pregnancy after a single embryo transfer. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2016, 59, 316–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Qian, Z.D.; Weng, Y.; Wang, C.F.; Huang, L.L.; Zhu, X.M. Research on the expression of integrin β3 and leukaemia inhibitory factor in the decidua of women with cesarean scar pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017, 17, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hsieh, B.C.; Hwang, J.L.; Pan, H.S.; Huang, S.C.; Chen, C.Y.; Chen, P.H. Heterotopic Caesarean scar pregnancy combined with intrauterine pregnancy successfully treated with embryo aspiration for selective embryo reduction: Case report. Hum. Reprod. 2004, 19, 285–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gupta, P.; Sehgal, A.; Huria, A.; Mehra, R. Secondary abdominal pregnancy and its associated diagnostic and operative dilemma: Three case reports. J. Med. Case Rep. 2009, 3, 7382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Demirel, L.C.; Bodur, H.; Selam, B.; Lembet, A.; Ergin, T. Laparoscopic management of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy with preservation of intrauterine gestation and delivery at term: Case report. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 91, 1293.e5–1293.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Salomon, L.J.; Fernandez, H.; Chauveaud, A.; Doumerc, S.; Frydman, R. Successful management of a heterotopic Caesarean scar pregnancy: Potassium chloride injection with preservation of the intrauterine gestation: Case report. Hum. Reprod. 2003, 18, 189–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Yazicioglu, H.F.; Turgut, S.; Madazli, R.; Aygün, M.; Cebi, Z.; Sönmez, S. An unusual case of heterotopic twin pregnancy managed successfully with selective feticide. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2004, 23, 626–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Taşkin, S.; Taşkin, E.A.; Ciftçi, T.T. Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy: How should it be managed? Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2009, 64, 690–695; quiz 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, C.J.; Tsai, F.; Chen, C.; Chao, A. Hysteroscopic management of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 94, 1529.e15–1529.e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gupta, R.; Vaikousi, E.; Whitlow, B. Heterotopic caesarean section scar pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2010, 30, 626–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Litwicka, K.; Greco, E.; Prefumo, F.; Fratelli, N.; Scarselli, F.; Ferrero, S.; Iammarrone, E.; Frusca, T. Successful management of a triplet heterotopic caesarean scar pregnancy after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 95, 291.e1–291.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dueñas-Garcia, O.F.; Young, C. Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy associated with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2011, 114, 153–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bai, X.X.; Gao, H.J.; Yang, X.F.; Dong, M.Y.; Zhu, Y.M. Expectant management of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy. Chin. Med. J. 2012, 125, 1341–1344. [Google Scholar]
  21. Uysal, F.; Uysal, A. Spontaneous heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy: Conservative management by transvaginal sonographic guidance and successful pregnancy outcome. J. Ultrasound Med. 2013, 32, 547–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lui, M.W.; Shek, N.W.; Li, R.H.; Chu, F.; Pun, T.C. Management of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy by repeated transvaginal ultrasonographic-guided aspiration with successful preservation of normal intrauterine pregnancy and complicated by arteriovenous malformation. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2014, 175, 209–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Armbrust, R.; Krätschell, R.; Henrich, W.; David, M. Operative Therapy for Heterotopic Scar Pregnancy and Successful Birth of the Intrauterine Foetus—Case Report and Review of the Literature. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015, 75, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Czuczwar, P.; Stępniak, A.; Woźniak, A.; Woźniak, S.; Paszkowski, T. Successful treatment of spontaneous heterotopic caesarean scar pregnancy by local potassium chloride injection with preservation of the intrauterine pregnancy. Ginekol. Pol. 2016, 87, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Miyague, A.H.; Chrisostomo, A.P.; Costa, S.L.; Nakatani, E.T.; Kondo, W.; Gomes, C.C. Treatment of heterotopic caesarean scar pregnancy complicated with post termination increase in size of residual mass and morbidly adherent placenta. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2018, 46, 227–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Vetter, M.H.; Andrzejewski, J.; Murnane, A.; Lang, C. Surgical Management of a Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy with Preservation of an Intrauterine Pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 128, 613–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vikhareva, O.; Nedopekina, E.; Herbst, A. Normal vaginal delivery at term after expectant management of heterotopic caesarean scar pregnancy: A case report. J. Med. Case Rep. 2018, 12, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tymon-Rosario, J.; Chuang, M. Selective Reduction of a Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy Complicated by Septic Abortion. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 2018, 6478589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Chen, Z.Y.; Zhou, Y.; Qian, Y.; Luo, J.M.; Huang, X.F.; Zhang, X.M. Management of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy with preservation of intrauterine pregnancy: A case report. World J. Clin. Cases 2021, 9, 6428–6434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ouyang, Y.; Chen, H.; Lin, G.; Xiang, S.; Qin, J.; Gong, F.; Li, X. Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: An Analysis of 20 Cases Following in vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer. J. Ultrasound Med. 2021, 40, 2239–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Authreya, A.J.; Agrawal, P.; Makam, A. Ultrasound-guided procedures in the management of heterotopic caesarean scar pregnancy—A review of case reports and case series. Australas. J. Ultrasound Med. 2021, 24, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Laing-Aiken, Z.; Robson, D.; Wu, J. Surgical management of first-trimester bleeding in a heterotopic caesarean scar pregnancy: A case report and review of literature. Case Rep. Womens Health 2020, 27, e00209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. OuYang, Z.; Yin, Q.; Xu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, Y. Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy: Diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. J. Ultrasound Med. 2014, 33, 1533–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Diagnostics 12 00762 g001 550
Figure 1. Initial examination. (a) Initial transvaginal ultrasound examination at 6+1 GW. *—intrauterine gestational sac; †—CSP. (b) Description of sagittal plane.
Figure 1. Initial examination. (a) Initial transvaginal ultrasound examination at 6+1 GW. *—intrauterine gestational sac; †—CSP. (b) Description of sagittal plane.
Diagnostics 12 00762 g001
Diagnostics 12 00762 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic procedures for embryo reduction. (a) A uterine sound was inserted to reach the CSP. (b) A spinal needle bent at an equal angle to the sound was then guided along to locate the CSP. (c) Potassium chloride was injected via spinal needle into the CSP.
Figure 2. Schematic procedures for embryo reduction. (a) A uterine sound was inserted to reach the CSP. (b) A spinal needle bent at an equal angle to the sound was then guided along to locate the CSP. (c) Potassium chloride was injected via spinal needle into the CSP.
Diagnostics 12 00762 g002
Diagnostics 12 00762 g003 550
Figure 3. Transvaginal ultrasonography examination at 7+1 GW. *—intrauterine gestational sac; †—RGT; CSP—cesarean scar pregnancy; GW—gestational weeks; RGT—remnant gestational tissue.
Figure 3. Transvaginal ultrasonography examination at 7+1 GW. *—intrauterine gestational sac; †—RGT; CSP—cesarean scar pregnancy; GW—gestational weeks; RGT—remnant gestational tissue.
Diagnostics 12 00762 g003
Diagnostics 12 00762 g004 550
Figure 4. Management of arterio-venous malformation after selective CSP embryo reduction. (a) Ultrasonography to visualize RGT with cervical shortening at 10+3 GW before cervical cerclage. The RGT went into the uterine cervical internal os. (b) Transvaginal ultrasonography at 12+3 GW after the cerclage. (c) Effect of cervical cerclage role on HCSP management (details are written in the discussion section). (d) Ultrasound examination at 24+3 GW. Enlarged arterio-venous circulation was observed in the demised CSP (†); asterisk (*) indicates the fetal foot. CSP—cesarean scar pregnancy; GW—gestational weeks; RGT—remnant gestational tissue.
Figure 4. Management of arterio-venous malformation after selective CSP embryo reduction. (a) Ultrasonography to visualize RGT with cervical shortening at 10+3 GW before cervical cerclage. The RGT went into the uterine cervical internal os. (b) Transvaginal ultrasonography at 12+3 GW after the cerclage. (c) Effect of cervical cerclage role on HCSP management (details are written in the discussion section). (d) Ultrasound examination at 24+3 GW. Enlarged arterio-venous circulation was observed in the demised CSP (†); asterisk (*) indicates the fetal foot. CSP—cesarean scar pregnancy; GW—gestational weeks; RGT—remnant gestational tissue.
Diagnostics 12 00762 g004
Table
Table 1. Literature review of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy.
Table 1. Literature review of heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy.
ReferenceConception/Previous CS (n)Diagnosis Modality/GW/Symptoms or EventCardiac Activity of CSP/IUPManagement/GWRGTAntenatal EventPregnancy Outcome
Salomon [13], 2003ART/1TVUS/8/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/NMPersistentPROMCS at 36 GW, live female, 2800 g, RGT excision during CS
Yazicioglu [14], 2004Spontaneous/1TVUS/6+2/VBYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/7+2Spontaneously disappearedPROMCS at 30 GW, live male, 1530 g, RGT detachment without complications
Hsieh [10], 2004ART (twin IUPs + CSP)/2TVUS/6/VBYes/YesUS-guided intervention (EA)/NMSpontaneously disappearedPreterm laborCS at 32 GW
Wang [1], 2007ART/3TVUS/7/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/NMPersistentPreterm laborCS at 35 GW, live male, 1820 g, bilateral internal iliac artery ligation due uterine bleeding, RGT excision during CS
Demirel [12], 2009N/M/1TVUS/6+5/VBYes/YesSurgical intervention (laparoscopy)/NMRemovedNoneCS at 38 GW, live singleton
Taşkin [15], 2009N/M/1TVUS/8+4/VBYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/9PersistentPreterm laborCS at 34 GW, live female, 2310 g, RGT excision during CS
Wang [16], 2010ART/1TVUS/7/VBYes/YesSurgical intervention (hysteroscopy)/7RemovedNoneCS at 39 GW, live male, 3250g
Gupta [17], 2010ART/4TVUS/6+1/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (EA)/6+3PersistentNoneTermination at 12 GW due to trisomy 13
Litwicka [18], 2011ART/1TVUS/6/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCl + MTX injection)/8PersistentPlacental abruptionCS at 36 GW, 1990 g male, Miller syndrome
Dueñas-Garcia and Young [19], 2011Spontaneous/3TVUS, MRI/5/NoneYes/YesMTX + leucovorin (used for abortion)/NMNM
Ugurlucan [3], 2012ART/1TVUS/6/VBYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCl injection + EA)/NMNoneNoneCS at 38 GW, live singleton, subtotal hysterectomy due to postpartum bleeding
Bai [20], 2012ART/1TVUS/7+6/VBYes/YesExpectantPersistentCSP miscarriageat 8+4 GW, VB and protruding RGTCS at 36+4 GW due to preterm labor, live male, 2950 g
Uysal [21], 2013Spontaneous/2TVUS/8/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/NMPersistentPreterm laborCS at 35 GW, live female, 2480 g, incomplete uterine rupture, RGT excision during CS
Lui [22], 2014ART/1TVUS/5/VBYes/YesUS-guided intervention (repeated EA)/NMPersistentNoneCS at 37 GW, live female, 2660 g, RGT with AVM, selective UAE
Kim [6], 2014Spontaneous/2TVUS/5+5/NoneYes/YesExpectantPersistentNoneCS at 37+2 GW, live twins, bladder adhesion, placenta accreta, bilateral uterine artery ligation
Armbrust [23], 2015ART/2TVUS/7/NoneYes/YesSurgical intervention (laparotomy)/NMNoneNoneCS at 37+2 GW, live singleton, 2895 g
Yu [2], 2016ART/1TVUS/11/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCl)/16+4PersistentPPT, accretaCS at 37+6 GW, live male, 2890 g, profuse vascularization with bladder adhesion, RGT excision during CS
Czuczwar [24], 2016NM/1TVUS/6/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCl injection)/7NoneNoneCS at 37 GW, live male, 3060 g
Lincenberg [7], 2016NM/3TVUS/10+2/AP, intraperitoneal hemorrhageYes/YesSurgical intervention (laparoscopy, laparotomy)/10+2PersistentUterine ruptureCS at 23+1 GW, live female, 423 g
Vetter [26], 2016Spontaneous/1TVUS/5/VBYes/Yes (too early)Surgical intervention (laparotomy)/NMNoneNoneCS at 37+1 GW, live female, 3479 g
Miyague [25], 2018NM/1TVUS, MRI/6/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (combined KCL injection + EA)/NMGrowth with vascularityRGT growth and AVM and MAP formationHysterectomy
Vikhareva [27], 2018NM/1TVUS/13/NoneNone/YesExpectantDisappeared at 18 GWNoneVD at 39 GW, live male, 2985 g
Tymon-Rosario [28], 2018NM/2TVUS/NM/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/10+6N/MSeptic shockHysterectomy after UAE, D&C
Ashwini J Authreya [31], 2021ART/1TVUS/7+6/NoneYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/NMNoneNoneCS at 38 GW, a term healthy baby
Zheng-Yun Chen [29], 2021Spontaneous/1TVUS/8/NoneYes/YesHyperosmolar glucose injection and EA/8+2, transcervical D&CDisappeared at 20 GWVaginal bleedingCS at 34+2 GW, a healthy baby PROM
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/NoneYes/YesAbortion (D&C) D&C + UAE
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/VBYes/YesUS-guided intervention (KCL injection)/NMPersistentVaginal bleedingIUP miscarriage at 14 GW
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6+2/VBYes/YesExpectant/8PersistentHysteroscopic excision of the CSP due to placenta accreta at 8 GW
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/NoneYes/NoneHIFU/7PersistentHysteroscopic removal of RGTMiscarriage of IUP at 7 GW
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/5+5/VBYes/YesD&C/13NMIUP and CSP miscarriage at 13 GW
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/VBYes/YesExpectantDisappeared at 20 GWCSP miscarriage at 13 GWCS at 29 GW, live female, 1300 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/VBYes/YesExpectantNMNoneCS at 40 GW, live two females, 2900 g and 2200 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/5+5/VBYes/YesExpectantNMIUP miscarriage at 20 GWCS at 36 GW, live female (CSP), 3000 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/VBYes/YesExpectantNMIIOCInduced abortion at 22 GW
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/2TVUS/6/NoneYes/YesExpectantPersistentCSP miscarriage at 10 GWCS at 37 GW, live male, 2600 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/NoneNone/YesExpectantDisappeared at 22 GWPROMCS at 36 GW, live female, 2900 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6+5/VB,APNone/YesExpectantPersistentNoneCS at 39 GW, live female 3900 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/VBNone/YesExpectantPersistentPlacental abruptionCS at 24 GW
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/4TVUS/8+5/VBNone/YesExpectantDisappeared at 16 GWNoneCS at 39 GW, live singleton, 2900 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6+2/VBNone/YesExpectantPersistentComplete placenta previaEmergency CS at 35 GW, live male, 2600 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/7+1/APNone/YesExpectantPersistentPPROMInduced abortion at 24 GW)
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/6/NoneNone/YesExpectantDisappeared at 24 GWNoneCS at 39 GW, live male, 3150 g
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/5+1/VBNone/YesAbortion (D&C and UAE at 7 GW)Removed
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/4+6/APYes/YesExpectantNMIUP miscarriage at 13 GWHysteroscopic removal of IUP
Ouyang [30], 2021ART/1TVUS/11/NoneNone/YesExpectantNoneUterine rupture at 12 GWLaparotomy repair
Laing-Aiken [32], 2020Spontaneous/1TVUS/9/VBYes/YesSurgical intervention (D&C, laparotomy)/9RemovedPPROMCS at 28+1 GW, live male, 1200 g, bilateral uterine artery ligation
AP—abdominal pain; ART—assisted reproduction techniques; AVM—arteriovenous malformation; CS—cesarean section; CSP—cesarean section pregnancy; D&C—dilation and curettage; EA—embryo aspiration; GW—gestational weeks; IIOC—incompetent internal os of cervix; HIFU—high-intensity focused ultrasound; IUP—intrauterine pregnancy; KCL—potassium chloride; MAP—morbidly adherent placenta; MRI—magnetic resonance imaging; NM—not mentioned; PROM—premature rupture of membrane; PPROM—preterm premature rupture of membrane; TVUS—transvaginal ultrasonography; UAE—uterine artery embolization; VB—vaginal bleeding.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, H.; Koh, J.H.; Lee, J.; Sim, Y.; Lee, S.-H.; Lee, S.-J.; Ahn, J.-W.; Roh, H.-J.; Kim, J.S. Successful Full-Term Delivery via Selective Ectopic Embryo Reduction Accompanied by Uterine Cerclage in a Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030762

AMA Style

Kim H, Koh JH, Lee J, Sim Y, Lee S-H, Lee S-J, Ahn J-W, Roh H-J, Kim JS. Successful Full-Term Delivery via Selective Ectopic Embryo Reduction Accompanied by Uterine Cerclage in a Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(3):762. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030762

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Hyoeun, Ji Hye Koh, Jihee Lee, Yeongeun Sim, Sang-Hun Lee, Soo-Jeong Lee, Jun-Woo Ahn, Hyun-Jin Roh, and Jeong Sook Kim. 2022. "Successful Full-Term Delivery via Selective Ectopic Embryo Reduction Accompanied by Uterine Cerclage in a Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review" Diagnostics 12, no. 3: 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12030762

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop