Background/Objective: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) represents a challenging and potentially life-threatening form of ectopic pregnancy. This study aims to assess the feasibility, safety, and clinical efficacy of employing the hysteroscopic mechanical tissue removal system as a primary treatment modality for CSP. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 53 patients diagnosed with CSP who underwent primary hysteroscopic resection at a tertiary care center. The surgical procedure was performed by prioritizing the “no-touch” vaginoscopic approach, which avoids instrumentation. Success rates, operation time, time to negative serum β-hCG, complications, and differences between the anatomical types of CSP (Type 1 vs. Type 2) were analyzed. Results: Primary hysteroscopic treatment was successful in 51 of 53 patients (96.2%). For the entire cohort, the median operative time was 7 min (range: 2–30), and the median interval to β-hCG negativization was 11 days (range: 6–45). The overall major complication rate was 3.8% (n = 2). One case was deemed unsuccessful due to conversion to laparotomy following uterine perforation during cervical dilation. Another patient, diagnosed with persistent trophoblastic disease requiring methotrexate (MTX) therapy, was also considered a treatment failure. Operative time was significantly longer in patients with Type II CSP compared with Type I (median 9 min vs. 5 min; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: Hysteroscopic mechanical tissue removal as a primary treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy represents an effective and safe “one-step” approach, characterized by a high success rate, rapid β-hCG resolution, and a low incidence of complications. This fertility-preserving, minimally invasive technique may be considered a primary treatment option for hemodynamically stable patients with CSP, provided that appropriate patient selection is undertaken and sufficient surgical expertise is available.
Bademkıran et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: