Outcome of high-intensity focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization in the treatment and management of cesarean scar pregnancy

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety between high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment and uterine artery embolization (UAE) treatment; we retrospectively analyzed 152 cases with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 152 patients (average age, 31.8 ± 4.6 years old) with CSP were eligible for the HIFU group (85 patients) or the UAE group (77 patients). All patients in 2 groups received the treatment with suction curettage under hysteroscopy prior to HIFU or UAE treatment and followed up for 12 months. The assessment criteria of treatment efficacy included the success rate, intraoperative blood loss, duration of vaginal bleeding, normal menstrual function recovery time, time for β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-HCG) back to normal level, duration of hospital stays, and other adverse effects. Following up for 12 months, the HIFU group was of less intraoperative blood loss (76.38 ± 22.89 vs 114.42 ± 30.34 mL, P = .02), shorter duration of postoperative vaginal bleeding (11.28 ± 3.65 vs 15.77 ± 7.24 days, P = .01) and lower adverse effects rate comparing to the UAE group. However, the HIFU group have longer time for the β-HCG recovery to the normal level (35.28 ± 9.86 vs 29.91 ± 7.29, P = .03). Additionally, there were no significantly statistic differences between the 2 groups in baseline characteristics, success rate, and average time of gestational sac disappeared and menstrual recovery and hospital stay. Thus, we concluded that the method of both HIFU and UAE combined with suction curettage under hysteroscopy is safe and effective in the management of CSP. Meanwhile, HIFU is a better therapy option than UAE for those women who are seeking complete relieve of symptom to gain fertility.