Risk factor for interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy? A retrospective matched case control study.
Hydrosalpinx
Interstitial pregnancy
Propensity score matching
Risk factor
Salpingectomy
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Nov 2023
30 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
23
06
2023
accepted:
15
11
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
1
12
2023
entrez:
1
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Interstitial pregnancy may still happen even after ipsilateral salpingectomy, resulting in massive hemorrhage. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify risk factors associated with interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy and discuss possible prevention. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a single, large, university-affiliated hospital. Data of 29 patients diagnosed with interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy from January 2011 to November 2020 were assigned into the case group (IP group). Whereas there were 6151 patients with intrauterine pregnancy after unilateral salpingectomy in the same period. A sample size of 87 control patients was calculated to achieve statistical power (99.9%) and an α of 0.05. The age, BMI and previous salpingectomy side between the two group were adjusted with PSM at a ratio of 1:3. After PSM, 87 intrauterine pregnancy patients were successfully matched to 29 IP patients. After PSM, parous women were more common and intrauterine operation was more frequent in the IP group compared with control group (P<0.05). There was only one patient undergoing IVF-ET in the IP group as compared with 29 cases in the control group (3.4% vs. 33.3%, P<0.05). Salpingectomy was performed on 5 patients in the IP group and 4 patients in the control group due to hydrosalpinx (P<0.05). Logistic regression indicated that hydrosalpinx was the high risk factor of interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy (OR = 8.175). Hydrosalpinx appears to be an independent factor contributing to interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy in subsequent pregnancy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Interstitial pregnancy may still happen even after ipsilateral salpingectomy, resulting in massive hemorrhage. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify risk factors associated with interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy and discuss possible prevention.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a single, large, university-affiliated hospital. Data of 29 patients diagnosed with interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy from January 2011 to November 2020 were assigned into the case group (IP group). Whereas there were 6151 patients with intrauterine pregnancy after unilateral salpingectomy in the same period. A sample size of 87 control patients was calculated to achieve statistical power (99.9%) and an α of 0.05. The age, BMI and previous salpingectomy side between the two group were adjusted with PSM at a ratio of 1:3. After PSM, 87 intrauterine pregnancy patients were successfully matched to 29 IP patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After PSM, parous women were more common and intrauterine operation was more frequent in the IP group compared with control group (P<0.05). There was only one patient undergoing IVF-ET in the IP group as compared with 29 cases in the control group (3.4% vs. 33.3%, P<0.05). Salpingectomy was performed on 5 patients in the IP group and 4 patients in the control group due to hydrosalpinx (P<0.05). Logistic regression indicated that hydrosalpinx was the high risk factor of interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy (OR = 8.175).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Hydrosalpinx appears to be an independent factor contributing to interstitial pregnancy following ipsilateral salpingectomy in subsequent pregnancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38037027
doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-06132-0
pii: 10.1186/s12884-023-06132-0
pmc: PMC10687775
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
826Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;103(1):47-50
pubmed: 14704243
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jun;95(7):2432.e1-4
pubmed: 21497804
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 May-Jun;18(3):296-302
pubmed: 21441075
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jul-Aug;23(5):739-47
pubmed: 26968755
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 May - Jun;26(4):671-678
pubmed: 30031208
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2006 Apr;32(2):190-4
pubmed: 16594923
Radiology. 1993 Oct;189(1):83-7
pubmed: 8372223
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Oct;181:176-82
pubmed: 25150957
Hum Reprod. 1991 Sep;6(8):1167-9
pubmed: 1806579
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Sep - Oct;25(6):1080-1087
pubmed: 29481875
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Dec;280(6):1015-7
pubmed: 19319552
Fertil Steril. 2008 Nov;90(5 Suppl):S66-8
pubmed: 19007649
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Nov;82:1173-9
pubmed: 13913219
Int J Fertil Steril. 2012 Jul;6(2):131-4
pubmed: 25493171
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Mar;50(1):89-99
pubmed: 17304026
Hum Reprod. 2002 Mar;17(3):543-8
pubmed: 11870100
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;55(2):376-86
pubmed: 22510618
Hum Reprod. 1999 May;14(5):1243-9
pubmed: 10325271
Clin Spine Surg. 2020 Apr;33(3):120-122
pubmed: 31913173
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2012 Feb;87(1):244-55
pubmed: 21883867
Fertil Steril. 1998 Jun;69(6):1020-5
pubmed: 9627287
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Mar;9(1):24-9
pubmed: 17145482
Fertil Steril. 1999 Aug;72(2):207-15
pubmed: 10438980
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Jan;29(1):69-70
pubmed: 19280509
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 25;11(3):e0152343
pubmed: 27015601
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;48(5):556-565
pubmed: 27854386
Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2762-9
pubmed: 10548619
JAMA. 1985 Feb 15;253(7):1005-8
pubmed: 3968823
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Feb;33(1):95-6
pubmed: 8498955
Lancet. 1976 Apr 24;1(7965):880-2
pubmed: 58146