Abstract
Background: Management of unusual not scar ectopic pregnancies (UNSEPs) is an unexplored clinical field because of their low incidence and lack of guidelines.
Objective: To report the clinical presentation, the first- and second-line treatment and outcomes of UNSEPs.
Methods: We retrospectively collected patients treated for UNSEP (namely cervical, interstitial, ovarian, angular, abdominal, cornual and intramural), their baseline characteristics, risk factors, symptoms, diagnostic pathway and the type of first-line treatment (medical, surgical or combined). We further collected treatment failures and the type of second- line treatment. We assessed treatment outcomes, time to serum beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) level negativity, length of recovery, follow up and return to a normal menstrual cycle.
Results: From 2009 to 2019, we collected 79 cases. Of them, 27 (34%), 23 (29%), 12 (15%), 8 (10%), 6 (8%) and 3 (4%) were cervical, interstitial, ovarian, angular, abdominal and cornual, respectively. Forty women (50.6%) were submitted to medical treatment, mostly methotrexate based; conversely, 36 patients (45.6%) underwent surgery and only 3 women (3.8%) received a combined treatment. The success of first-line treatment rate, regardless of UNSEP location, was 53% and 89% for medical and surgical treatment, respectively. Treatment failures (21 patients) were submitted to second-line treatment, respectively 47.6% and 52.4% to medical and surgical approach. Of interest, cervical pregnancies achieved the lowest rate of first-line medical treatment success (22%) and received more frequently (69%) a subsequent surgical approach with no hysterectomy. Interstitial pregnancies were submitted to surgery mostly for a matter of urgency (71%), otherwise, they were treated with a medical approach both at first- and second-line treatment. Ovarian pregnancies were treated with ovariectomy in 44% of the cases submitted to surgery. Angular pregnancies underwent surgery more often, while all the abdominal pregnancies underwent endoscopic or open surgery. Cornual pregnancies received cornuostomy in 75% of the cases. Overall, the need for blood transfusion was 23.1% among the patients submitted to surgery. The median length of hospitalisation was shorter for women submitted to surgical first-line treatment (5 vs. 10 days; p = 0.002). In case of first-line medical treatment and in case of failure, we found an increase of 3 days (CI95% 0.6-5.5; p = 0.01) and of 3.6 days (CI95% 0.89-6.30; p = 0.01) in the length of hospitalisation, respectively. Negative β-HCG levels were obtained earlier in the surgical group (median 25 vs. 51 days; p = 0.001), as well as the return to normal menstrual cycle (median 31 vs. 67 days; p < 0.000). Post-treatment follow-up, regardless of the failure of first-line treatment was shorter in the surgical group (median 32 versus 68 days; p= 0.003).
Conclusion: Cervical pregnancies were successfully managed with a surgical approach without hysterectomy, and hence, we suggest avoiding medical treatment. No consensus emerged for other UNSEPs. Ovarian, angular and interstitial pregnancies are burdened by a non-conservative approach on the utero-ovarian structures. The surgical approach led to shorter recovery, earlier β-hCG negativity and shorter follow-up, even though there is an increased risk for blood transfusion.
Keywords: Ectopic pregnancy, cornual pregnancy, interstitial pregnancy, cervical pregnancy, ovarian pregnancy, abdominal pregnancy, hepatic pregnancy, angular pregnancy, intramural pregnancy.
Graphical Abstract
[PMID: 27813249]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.12146] [PMID: 24033915]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt047] [PMID: 24101604]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.04.002] [PMID: 25156020]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20163185]
[PMID: 17651573]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2018.1547764] [PMID: 30514139]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40738-015-0008-z] [PMID: 28620520]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(78)90377-0] [PMID: 619667]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.2838] [PMID: 16933302]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.2693] [PMID: 16514619]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/504062] [PMID: 20981282]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.010] [PMID: 26979630]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.03.087] [PMID: 28729096]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000148271.27446.30] [PMID: 15625140]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003595] [PMID: 31809430]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.019] [PMID: 30904487]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-011-0724-2] [PMID: 22611348]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.13322] [PMID: 28422362]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.08060373.x] [PMID: 9014275]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.4077] [PMID: 17587215]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.189.1.8372223] [PMID: 8372223]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01633.x] [PMID: 21917068]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00366-X] [PMID: 15036722]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05379-3] [PMID: 31729562]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e14] [PMID: 31912672]
[PMID: 25535498]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2010.tb00162.x] [PMID: 28191089]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.03.041] [PMID: 30898658]
[PMID: 28416938]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.057] [PMID: 24704060]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003081-200206000-00025] [PMID: 12048412]
[PMID: 27480601]
[PMID: 28533582]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01405.x] [PMID: 21375673]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7863/jum.2008.27.4.679] [PMID: 18359918]