Author:
Lai Theodora Hei Tung,Ko Jennifer Ka Yee,Ng Hung Yu Ernest
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Non-tubal ectopic pregnancies account for < 10% of all ectopic pregnancies. Due to its rarity and wide variation in clinical practice, there is no guideline or consensus for its management. We reported our 20-year experience in the management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancies in a tertiary hospital.
Methods
This is a retrospective review of all women admitted for non-tubal ectopic pregnancies from January 2003 to December 2022 in a tertiary hospital. Women with non-tubal ectopic pregnancies diagnosed by ultrasound or operation were included for analysis.
Results
Within the study period, 180 women were diagnosed to have non-tubal ectopic pregnancies at a mean gestation of 6.8 weeks. 16.7% (30/180) were conceived via assisted reproduction. Medical treatment was the first-line management option for 81 women, of which 75 (92.1%) women received intralesional methotrexate administered under transvaginal ultrasound guidance. The success rate of intralesional methotrexate ranges from 76.5% to 92.3%. Intralesional methotrexate was successful even in cases with a positive fetal pulsation or with high human chorionic gonadotrophin levels up to 252605U/L. Twenty seven women were managed expectantly and 40 underwent surgery. Nine (11.1%), two (6.1%), and one (2.3%) women required surgery due to massive or recurrent bleeding following medical, expectant, or surgical treatment. Hysterotomy and uterine artery embolization were necessary to control bleeding in one Caesarean scar and one cervical pregnancy.
Conclusions
Intralesional methotrexate is more effective than systemic methotrexate and should be considered as first line medical treatment for non-tubal ectopic pregnancies. It has a high success rate in the management of unruptured non-tubal ectopic pregnancies even in the presence of fetal pulsations or high human chorionic gonadotrophin levels, but patients may require a prolonged period of monitoring. Close surveillance and readily available surgery were required due to the risk of heavy post-procedural intra-abdominal bleeding.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference28 articles.
1. Tulandi T, Al-Jaroudi D. Interstitial pregnancy: results generated from the Society of Reproductive Surgeons Registry. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(1):47–50.
2. Elson CJ, Salim R, Potdar N, Chetty M, Ross JA, Kirk EJ on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy. BJOG. 2016;123:e15–e55.
3. Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):731–8.
4. Madhavi Kalidindi AS, Odejinmi F. Expect the unexpected: The dilemmas in the diagnosis and management of interstitial ectopic pregnancy—Case report and literature review. Gynecol Minimal Invas Ther. 2016;5(1):35–7.
5. Pregnancy Ewgo E, Kirk E, Ankum P, Jakab A, Le Clef N, Ludwin A, et al. Terminology for describing normally sited and ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound: ESHRE recommendations for good practice. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(4):hoaa055.