Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_759_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
47 Мб
Скачать
27 Cesarean Section
299

Recognition

A fever in the postpartum period, especially when associated with increasing abdominal pain and wound erythema or discharge, suggests a surgical site infection. Alternative etiologies such as mas­titis, urinary tract infection, endometritis, and atelectasis are also considered. Infections pre­senting soon (24–48hours) after delivery charac­terized by high fevers, necrotic incisions, or sepsis should raise suspicion for causative agents such as Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus. Without aggressive treatment, these infections progress to necrotizing fasciitis and are associ­ated with substantial maternal mortality.

Management

Treatment of post-cesarean infection relies on antibiotic therapy and source control. The combi­nation of clindamycin and gentamicin is highly effective empiric antibiotic treatment for endo­metritis after vaginal or cesarean delivery [45]. Ampicillin is added to this regimen if there is no clinical improvement in 48–72hours, and ther­apy should continue until fevers and uterine ten­derness abate. For incisional infections extended antimicrobial treatment, in addition to surgical drainage, is necessary. It is important to assess fascial integrity and debride devitalized subcuta­neous tissue. The wound is left to heal by second­ary intention. In addition to broad-spectrum IV antibiotics, necrotizing infections and wound infections resulting in uterine necrosis require extensive surgical debridement and hysterec­tomy, respectively.
The cost of management of SSI and follow up wound care (especially wound vacuums and sec­ondary closure) is signicant. Olsen and col­leagues found that the direct cost of each case of cesarean section SSI was approximately $3500. Based on our previous estimate of 27,500 cesar­ean SSI×$3500 per SSI gives us a conservative estimate of approximately $100 million per year, not factoring in indirect costs including costs of outpatient management and lost productivity [41, 46].

References

1. Sewell J.Cesarean section: a brief history. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine; 1993. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/
index.html.
2. Osterman MJK, Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Driscoll AK, Valenzuela CP.Births: nal data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023;72(1):1–53.
3. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ.Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–93.
4. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29–38.
5. Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-
2011. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):548–58.
6. Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(3):527–35.
7. Teal EN, Anudokem K, Baer RJ, Jelliffe-Pawlowski L, Mengesha B. Racial disparities in the rates of and indications for cesarean delivery in California: are they changing over time? Am J Perinatol. 2024;41(1):31–8.
8. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD.Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean deliv­ery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(1):36.e1-5; dis­cussion 91-2. e7-11.
9. Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH, Bréart G.Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(3 Pt 1):541–8.
10. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benets? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(1):7–18.
11. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS.Maternal mortality and severe morbid­ity associated with low-risk planned cesarean deliv­ery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007;176(4):455–60.
12. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1226–32.
13. Practice bulletin no. 183: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):e168–e86.
14. Wang Y, Zhao S. Integrated systems physiology: from molecules to function to disease. Vascular biol­ogy of the placenta. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences; 2010. Copyright © 2010 by Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences.
15. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System: Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from:
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal­mortality/pregnancy- mortality- surveillance- system.
300
A. Kendle and H. Brown
htm#:~:text=Since%20the%20Pregnancy%20 Mortality%20Surveillance,100%2C000%20live%20 births%20in%202019.
16. Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Rouse DJ, Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(4):294–306.
17. Prendiville WJ, Elbourne D, McDonald S.Active ver­sus expectant management in the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(3):Cd000007.
18. Vogel JP, Williams M, Gallos I, Althabe F, Oladapo OT.WHO recommendations on uterotonics for post­partum haemorrhage prevention: what works, and which one? BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(2):e001466.
19. Bienstock JL, Eke AC, Hueppchen NA.Postpartum Hemorrhage. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(17):1635–45.
20. Bingham D, Lyndon A, Lagrew D, Main EK. A state-wide obstetric hemorrhage quality improve­ment initiative. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2011;36(5):297–304.
21. Parry Smith WR, Papadopoulou A, Thomas E, Tobias A, Price MJ, Meher S, et al. Uterotonic agents for rst-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;11(11):Cd012754.
22. Effect of early tranexamic acid administration on mortality, hysterectomy, and other morbidities in women with post-partum haemorrhage (WOMAN): an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo­controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10084):2105–16.
23. Likis FE, Sathe NA, Morgans AK, Hartmann KE, Young JL, Carlson-Bremer D, etal. AHRQ compara­tive effectiveness reviews. Management of postpartum hemorrhage. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015.
24. Kayem G, Kurinczuk JJ, Alrevic Z, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M. Uterine compression sutures for the management of severe postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(1):14–20.
25. El-Hamamy E, Wright A, C BL.The B-Lynch suture technique for postpartum haemorrhage: a decade of experience and outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;29(4):278–83.
26. O’Leary JA. Uterine artery ligation in the con­trol of postcesarean hemorrhage. J Reprod Med. 1995;40(3):189–93.
27. Joshi VM, Otiv SR, Majumder R, Nikam YA, Shrivastava M. Internal iliac artery ligation for arresting postpartum haemorrhage. BJOG. 2007;114(3):356–61.
28. Brown M, Hong M Jr, Lindquist J. Uterine artery embolization for primary postpartum hemorrhage. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021;24(1):100727.
29. Sathe NA, Likis FE, Young JL, Morgans A, Carlson-Bremer D, Andrews J. Procedures and uterine- sparing surgeries for managing postpartum hemorrhage: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71(2):99–113.
30. Lee HY, Shin JH, Kim J, Yoon HK, Ko GY, Won HS, et al. Primary postpartum hemorrhage: outcome of
pelvic arterial embolization in 251 patients at a single institution. Radiology. 2012;264(3):903–9.
31. Mohan PP, Hamblin MH, Vogelzang RL. Uterine artery embolization and its effect on fertility. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(7):925–30.
32. Giugale LE, Sakamoto S, Yabes J, Dunn SL, Krans EE. Unintended hysterotomy extension during cae­sarean delivery: risk factors and maternal morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(8):1048–53.
33. Sung JF, Daniels KI, Brodzinsky L, El-Sayed YY, Caughey AB, Lyell DJ.Cesarean delivery outcomes after a prolonged second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(3):306.e1–5.
34. McQuivey RW, Block JE.Vacuum-assisted cesarean section. Int J Women’s Health. 2017;9:151–5.
35. ACOG practice bulletin no. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):e110–e27.
36. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Risk of uterine rup­ture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(5):1003–6.
37. Coad SL, Dahlgren LS, Hutcheon JA.Risks and con­sequences of puerperal uterine inversion in the United States, 2004 through 2013. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):377.e1-.e6.
38. Huntington JLIF, Kellogg FS.Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;(15):34.
39. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion. Proc R Soc Med. 1908;1(Obstet Gynaecol Sect):279–90.
40. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP.Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1607–17.
41. Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Mu Y, Banerjee S, Allen­Bridson K, Morrell G, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report: data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(10):783–805.
42. ACOG practice bulletin no. 199: use of prophylac­tic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(3):e103–e19.
43. Carter EB, Temming LA, Fowler S, Eppes C, Gross G, Srinivas SK, et al. Evidence-based bundles and cesarean delivery surgical site infections: a sys­tematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):735–46.
44. Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, Saade G, Longo S, Clark E, et al. Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1231–41.
45. Mackeen AD, Packard RE, Ota E, Speer L.Antibiotic regimens for postpartum endometritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(2):Cd001067.
46. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, Gross GA, Fraser VJ.Comparison of costs of surgical site infection and endometritis after cesarean delivery using claims and medical record data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):872–5.

Management of Ectopic Pregnancy and Surgical Considerations

TheresaFisher andKristinPowell
28

Background

The term ectopic pregnancy encompasses all pregnancies located outside of the endometrial cavity. While the vast majority of ectopic preg­nancies are located within the fallopian tube (93%), they can also be located within the inter­stitial portion of the fallopian tube or in the ovary, cervix, cesarean section scar, and abdo­men (Fig. 28.1) [1]. An ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed by the visualization of an embryo out­side of the endometrial cavity either on ultra­sound or at the time of surgery; however, it should be considered in the differential diagno­sis in any situation where there is a positive human chorionic gonadotropin (hGC) and no evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP).
T. Fisher Obstetrics and Gynecology, Platte Valley Medical Center, Brighton, CO, USA
K. Powell (*) Obstetrics and Gynecology, Denver Health, Denver, CO, USA e-mail: kristin.powell@dhha.org
The evaluation of a pregnancy of unknown location and diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy is out of the scope of this chapter. Once a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy is made; however, it can be managed in one of several ways, including expect­ant, medical, and surgical management. The fol­lowing will focus on surgical management and associated complications. Surgical management is indicated for ectopic pregnancy when there is con­cern for hemodynamic instability or other ndings suggestive of tubal rupture. Surgery should also be considered when there is a high risk of medical treatment failure or the presence of contraindica­tions to the administration of methotrexate or expectant management.
For a tubal ectopic pregnancy, a laparoscopic unilateral salpingectomy is the most common surgical treatment. Since the mid-1990s, laparos­copy has been favored over laparotomy for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy due to its reduced recovery time, decreased blood loss, less pain, and shorter length of hospital stay [2]. Linear sal­pingostomy, where the fallopian tube is incised and the ectopic pregnancy extracted, is another treatment option. This is more commonly utilized when fertility preservation is a priority such as if there has been prior damage to or removal of the contralateral fallopian tube.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 M. Hoffman et al. (eds.), Major Complications of Female Pelvic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66772-5_28
301
302
T
Cesarean
Ectopic pregnancy
Fig. 28.1 Possible locations of ectopic pregnancy
T. Fisher and K. Powell
Interstitial
ubal
Ovarian
Abdominal
scar
Cervical
Selection ofAppropriate Surgical

Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy

Candidates
In a hemodynamically stable patient without evi-

Prevention

dence of tubal rupture, surgery should only be performed when there is clear ultrasonographic
Avoidance ofSurgery withMedical Management
The complications of surgical management for ectopic pregnancy can be drastically reduced by preventing the need for surgery in the rst place with medical management. Intramuscular metho­trexate is the mainstay of medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy. Methotrexate interferes with the conversion of folate to its active form required for DNA synthesis. Methotrexate is highly effec­tive at resolving ectopic pregnancy with an over­all success rate of 89% [3]. However, there are several absolute contraindications to methotrex­ate therapy including hemodynamic instability, presumed ectopic rupture, intrauterine pregnancy (including heterotopic pregnancy), renal or hepatic impairment, breastfeeding, and certain medical comorbidities such as active pulmonary disease, peptic ulcer disease, and cytopenia [4].
evidence of tubal pregnancy or a concerning adnexal mass. Without these ndings, there is a risk the ectopic pregnancy will not be identiable at the time of laparoscopy, resulting in an unnec­essary procedure, or worse, inappropriate removal of a normal fallopian tube. In a patient with an hCG trend concerning for ectopic preg­nancy without ultrasonographic ndings, medical management or expectant management should be considered rst-line treatment. Expectant man­agement is a reasonable option for patients who are asymptomatic and have a low starting hCG, although there is no consensus on an hCG thresh­old [5]. If surgical management is highly desired, a repeat transvaginal ultrasound can be performed in a few days, at which time the ectopic may be visualized. Diagnostic dilation and curettage (D&C) can also be utilized when the location of the pregnancy is uncertain.
28 Management of Ectopic Pregnancy and Surgical Considerations
303
Bleeding, Infection, andDamage toSurrounding Structures
The risks of surgery for ectopic pregnancy are similar to all surgical procedures and include bleeding, infection, and injury to surrounding structures. Ectopic pregnancy involves the inher­ent risk of tubal rupture and associated hemor­rhage, which will be discussed extensively. Bleeding from procedure-related events is how­ever infrequent. All patients should have an active type and screen, with a low threshold to convert to a type and cross. In the setting of hemodynamic instability, aggressive resuscita­tion should include blood transfusion rather than crystalloid alone given the risk of signicant tubal bleeding. Infection complications are also rare and prophylactic antibiotics are not recom­mended [6].
Given the location of the fallopian tubes, dam­age to surrounding structures is also infrequent at the time of surgery for ectopic pregnancy. Nevertheless, the ectopic pregnancy and espe­cially tubal rupture are inammatory in nature and can cause distortion of normal anatomy. If adhesions are present, adhesiolysis should rst be performed to restore normal anatomy and allow full visualization of the fallopian tube and sur­rounding structures. If a salpingectomy is being performed, care should be taken to identify and avoid the ipsilateral ovary and infundibulopelvic ligament.
Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy
Laparoscopy is currently the standard of care for the vast majority of gynecologic procedures, including surgery for ectopic pregnancy. The benets of minimally invasive surgery are numer­ous when compared to laparotomy, including decreased blood loss, pain, operative time, and length of stay. Historically, concerns were raised regarding the safety of laparoscopy with massive hemorrhage and hemodynamic instability. These concerns included delay in control of bleeding, the hemodynamic effects of laparoscopy, and increased morbidity with the need for conversion to laparotomy.
The establishment of pneumoperitoneum and patient positioning for pelvic surgery can induce physiologic and hemodynamic changes.
Pneumoperitoneum increases intrabdominal pressure, decreasing venous return and cardiac output; however, this increased pressure may also provide tamponade to ongoing bleeding from the ectopic. Trendelenburg positioning also increases venous return, possibly balancing the effects of increased intraabdominal pressure [7].
In a study of patients with ruptured ectopic pregnancy and massive (>800mL) hemoperito­neum, both operating time (50 vs. 60 minutes) and total blood loss (1000 vs 1500mL) were less in the laparoscopic group [8]. Only two out of 48 patients (4%) required conversion to laparotomy. As experience and comfort with laparoscopy have increased, conversion rates to laparotomy have continued to decrease, including in cases of massive hemoperitoneum and hemodynamic instability [9, 10].

Recognition

Massive Hemorrhage, Hemodynamic Instability
Blood loss from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy encompasses a wide spectrum, from a few milli­liters to a catastrophic and life-threatening hem­orrhage. Recognition of intrabdominal bleeding prior to the onset of hemodynamic instability can allow for expeditious operative management and resuscitation.
In any patient with a positive pregnancy test and signs or symptoms of hypovolemia, such as tachycardia or hypotension, a ruptured ectopic pregnancy should be considered high on the dif­ferential. Nevertheless, normal vital signs can still be observed in cases of ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and in fact normal vital signs are pres­ent in the vast majority of cases [11]. The pres­ence of vital sign abnormalities also does not correlate with the volume of the hemoperitoneum at the time of surgery.
Ultrasound can also be used to help recognize hemoperitoneum resulting from ectopic preg­nancy. This may be done as a part of a routine pelvic ultrasound or as part of a Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma also known as a FAST scan. In one study of patients with a conrmed ectopic pregnancy at the time of
304
T. Fisher and K. Powell
surgery, a large amount of pelvic free uid made rupture likely, however, rupture was still present in 21% of patients with no or trace intraperitoneal uid on ultrasound [12]. Specic ultrasound nd­ings that may be more associated with higher vol­ume hemoperitoneum (>300 mL) include free uid extending above the uterine fundus or free uid in Morison’s pouch [13, 14].
A ruptured ectopic pregnancy can also lead to other symptoms, including pain on abdominal and pelvic examination, pain with cervical manipula­tion, or shoulder pain with inspiration due to referred pain from diaphragmatic irritation.
Laparoscopic Entry andComplications
The general complications of laparoscopic sur­gery, including laparoscopic entry techniques are discussed in Chap. 23. These risks exist at the time of laparoscopic surgery for ectopic preg­nancy and may be further complicated by the presence of large volume hemoperitoneum which can impair visualization. While the choice of abdominal entry technique should be determined by individual experience and preference, it should be noted that hemoperitoneum may be immediately encountered upon entry, making visualization and conrmation of entry more dif­cult, especially when using a direct vision entry technique.
Nondiagnostic Laparoscopy
If at the time of surgery, bilateral normal­appearing fallopian tubes are visualized, salpin­gectomy or salpingostomy should not be performed. This situation can be minimized by selecting appropriate candidates for surgery as discussed previously but can still occur. Free uid visualized on ultrasound may at the time of surgery turn out to be simple physiologic uid or blood from a ruptured hemorrhagic cyst. An adnexal mass seen on ultrasound may actually be found to be a paratubal cyst or a corpus luteum. In the case of a documented abnormal beta-hCG trend, the patient can be offered a diagnostic D&C or this can be performed simultaneously if it was previously discussed and consent was obtained. The aspirated tissue can be sent to pathology for evaluation or placed into normal saline and examined for oating chorionic villi.
The oating villi technique is highly variable and depends on the performer’s level of experience. Frozen section is highly sensitive and specic and can still provide the benet of timely results if the surgeon is examining the specimen them­selves [15]. An hCG level should be followed postoperatively and if levels decrease by 15% or more in the 24hours following the D&C, a com­pleted abortion can be suspected. If the subse­quent hCG level rises or plateaus, the diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy is made, and the patient should be offered methotrexate. In a patient with­out a preexisting hCG trend, hCG levels should be followed in standard fashion for a pregnancy of an unknown location.

Management

Hemoperitoneum
The key to safe and prompt surgical management of ectopic pregnancy is proper visualization, which can be difcult in the setting of tubal rup­ture and hemoperitoneum. Immediately upon laparoscopic entry blood may be encountered, completely obscuring the pelvic organs. It is important to slowly place the laparoscope into the abdomen to avoid contact with blood, as this will quickly dirty the lenses and repeated pauses to clean the camera may cause signicant delay in treatment. Once the laparoscope is success­fully within the abdomen, a few techniques can be used to quickly improve visualization. Extensive suctioning of blood can be time­consuming, especially with large clots, and fur­ther slow identication of the bleeding source. A sponge stick can be placed into the vagina or a uterine manipulator can be inserted (if an intra­uterine pregnancy has been ruled out) to elevate the uterus and fallopian tubes above the blood and allow rapid identication of the source of bleeding. The patient can also be placed into steep Trendelenburg to quickly facilitate move­ment of bowel and blood out of the pelvis. In cases of extremely brisk bleeding, the area can be immediately grasped with a nontraumatic instru­ment to stop further bleeding while additional port access, a coagulation device, etc. is obtained. Once appropriate visualization is secured, hemo-
28 Management of Ectopic Pregnancy and Surgical Considerations
305
stasis can be easily achieved with an advanced bipolar device. Afterward, time can be given to evacuating the hemoperitoneum and irrigating the pelvis. Upsizing to a 10mm port and a 10mm suction cannula will also facilitate the removal of a large volume of clot and blood.
Choice ofSalpingectomy Versus Salpingotomy
There are two options for surgical management of ectopic pregnancy, salpingectomy and sal­pingostomy. Salpingostomy is contraindicated with tubal rupture, signicant tubal damage, or uncontrolled bleeding. Some ectopic pregnan­cies may also be too large to feasibly remove through a salpingostomy. Salpingostomy should not be used for ectopic pregnancies in the tubal isthmus, due to the risk of trophoblas­tic inltration into the muscular layer, leading to signicant bleeding and irreparable tubal damage [16] Salpingostomy should also not be performed in cases of recurrent ectopic preg­nancy, as the likelihood of subsequent normal tubal function is low.
Given that the entire fallopian tube is usually removed with salpingectomy at the time of sur­gery, the risk of a persistent ectopic pregnancy (PEP) is extraordinarily low. There are however case reports of PEP in the remaining proximal portion of the ipsilateral tube [17]. This would suggest that minimizing the remaining tubal stump at the time of initial salpingectomy can reduce this risk.
The risk of PEP following salpingostomy is higher, between 5% and 29%, and currently, there are no algorithms that predict who will go on to have a PEP [18]. For this reason, all patients who undergo salpingostomy should have follow­ up hCG levels trended. Methotrexate can also be used as an adjuvant therapy in one of three ways. It can be given routinely to all patients undergo­ing salpingostomy, it can be given on an individu­alized base postoperatively if there is concern for trophoblastic spill or incomplete tubal evacua­tion, or it can be given only to those with an abnormal postoperative hCG trend.
Future pregnancy outcomes following salpin­gostomy and salpingectomy were compared in a 2021 metanalysis. Using data from two random-
ized controlled trials (RCT), there were no differ­ences in the risk of recurrent ectopic pregnancy (REP) or subsequent intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) between the two methods [18]. However, these RCTs included only low-risk patients with a normal contralateral tube. When a similar anal­ysis of sixteen cohort studies was performed, which contained a more inclusive population, including patients with risk factors for infertility, there was an approximately 50% reduction in subsequent IUP with salpingectomy. In contrast, the risk of REP was greater for salpingostomy when compared with salpingectomy in this popu­lation, with an overall odds ratio of 0.732.
In summary, in low-risk patients with a normal- appearing contralateral fallopian tube, salpingectomy minimizes the risk of persistent ectopic pregnancy and the need for additional follow-up. In patients at high risk for infertility or a damaged or absent contralateral tube, salpin­gostomy can be considered, and the risk of per­sistent ectopic pregnancy can be minimized by trending hCG levels and adjuvant methotrexate.

Nontubal Ectopic Pregnancy

Prevention

It is important to review the pelvic ultrasound to conrm the ectopic location prior to proceeding with surgery. While implantation in the ampul­lary portion of the fallopian tube is the most com­mon location for an ectopic pregnancy, implantation in other locations could change the surgical approach and therefore should inform patient consent. Additionally, the surgeon should be prepared to change surgical approaches due to interoperative ndings.

Recognition

An ovarian ectopic can be mistaken for tubal pregnancy or aborted tubal pregnancy on ultra­sound. Histological diagnosis is based on Spiegelberg criteria. These criteria include that (1) The fallopian tube is undamaged and separate from the ovary on the affected side (2) The gesta-
306
T. Fisher and K. Powell
tional sac is in the normal position of the ovary (3) The gestational sac with the ovary is con­nected to the uterus via the ovarian ligament and (4) Ovarian tissue is located in the wall of the gestational sac [19].
Other presentations that can be more difcult to discern include an interstitial versus an angular pregnancy (Fig. 28.2). Angular pregnancies are less likely to rupture compared to interstitial pregnancies and can go on to be normal-term pregnancies, while interstitial pregnancies require surgical removal. Interstitial pregnancy can be difcult to diagnose on ultrasound and therefore diagnosis of an interstitial pregnancy can be delayed, resulting in a high rate of rupture. On ultrasound, an interstitial pregnancy will look like an eccentric gestational sac, which is not completely surrounded by myometrium and does not communicate or only partially communicates with the endometrium. Angular pregnancies are located in the uterine cavity medial to the outer tubular junction with the gestational sac com­pletely surrounded by endometrium [20]. At the time of surgery, angular pregnancies will be seen medial to the round ligament, while interstitial pregnancies will be lateral.
Cervical and cesarean scar pregnancies are also worth noting as failure to recognize could delay treatment. Cervical pregnancy can be mistaken for incomplete abortion, with cervical ectopic preg-
nancy being a gestational sac implanted in the cer­vix with regular contours and without evidence of intrauterine pregnancy. Cesarean scar pregnancy can also be mistaken for either incomplete abor­tion or cervical ectopic pregnancy. Ultrasound ndings for a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy include a gestational sac and/or placenta at the site of prior hysterotomy [21].

Management

Interstitial
Surgical management of an interstitial pregnancy entails cornuostomy vs cornual resection. Success rates and rates of persistent ectopic preg­nancy were similar. The operative time for a cor­nuostomy tends to be shorter than that of resection [22]. Surgical blood loss at the time of cornuos­tomy can be reduced with the injection of dilute vasopressin at the site, similar to a myomectomy. Also, similarly, closure of the surgical site with cornuostomy or wedge resection requires multi­layer closure. Therefore, the surgical approach in terms of laparotomy vs laparoscopy should be driven by surgeon experience, including comfort with laparoscopic suturing.
Due to disruption of the myometrium, preg­nancies after cornuostomy and cornual wedge resection have been known to have an increased
a
Angular
Fig. 28.2 Illustrations of angular vs interstitial ectopic pregnancy
b
b
Interstitial
28 Management of Ectopic Pregnancy and Surgical Considerations
307
risk of uterine dehiscence and rupture, as high as 30% [23]. These subsequent pregnancies should be managed similarly to pregnancy after full­thickness myomectomy or prior uterine rupture with a recommendation to not labor. Therefore, patients should have a planned cesarean delivery at the gestational age suggested by the most cur­rent obstetric guidelines.
Ovarian
Generally, it is recommended to proceed with ovarian sparing surgery for ovarian ectopic preg­nancies. This can be achieved in a similar fashion to an ovarian cystectomy. Again, a dilute vaso­constrictor can be injected at the site to aid in the reduction of blood loss. Oophorectomy should only be considered in the case of uncontrolled hemorrhage and hemodynamic instability [24].
Cervical andCesarean Scar
Cervical and cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy can be managed either medically or surgically. The risk of hemorrhage is high with the evacuation of these pregnancies, especially with using sharp curettage. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) prior to procedure can help to reduce the risk of hemorrhage if performed prior to dilation and curettage with a cervical ectopic pregnancy. UAE has also been shown to be helpful prior to vac­uum aspiration or alone for treatment of cesarean scar pregnancies. Hysterectomy can be per­formed if conservative management fails, or in the case of life-threatening bleeding. Expectant management of cesarean scar pregnancy can result in an increased risk of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and cesarean hysterectomy at the time of delivery [21].

References

1. Hoffman BL, Schorge JO, Halvorson LM, Hamid CA, Corton MM, Schaffer JI. Ectopic preg­nancy. In: Williams gynecology. 4e ed. McGraw­Hill Education; 2020. Accessed 27 Sept 2021.
accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx? aid=1171528516.
2. Takacs P, Chakhtoura N.Laparotomy to laparoscopy: changing trends in the surgical management of ecto-
pic pregnancy in a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(3):175–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2006.01.007.
3. Barnhart K. The medical management of ecto­pic pregnancy: a meta-analysis comparing “single dose” and “multidose” regimens. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(4):778–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0029- 7844(02)03158- 7.
4. Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a commit­tee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):638–44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.013.
5. Trio D, Strobelt N, Picciolo C, Lapinski RH, Ghidini A.Prognostic factors for successful expect­ant management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1995;63(3):469–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0015- 0282(16)57410- X.
6. Prevention of infection after gynecologic procedures: ACOG practice bulletin, number 195. Accessed 11 Apr 2023. https://oce- ovid- com.proxy.hsl.ucdenver.
edu/article/00006250- 201806000- 00055/PDF.
7. Atkinson TM, Giraud GD, Togioka BM, Jones DB, Cigarroa JE. Cardiovascular and ventilatory con­sequences of laparoscopic surgery. Circulation. 2017;135(7):700–10. https://doi.org/10.1161/
CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023262.
8. Cohen A, Almog B, Satel A, Lessing JB, Tsafrir Z, Levin I.Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the man­agement of ectopic pregnancy with massive hemoperi­toneum. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123(2):139–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.05.014.
9. Rizzuto MI, Oliver R, Odejinmi F. Laparoscopic management of ectopic pregnancy in the presence of a signicant haemoperitoneum. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;277(5):433–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00404- 007- 0473- 7.
10. Odejinmi F, Sangrithi M, Olowu O.Operative laparos­copy as the mainstay method in management of hemo­dynamically unstable patients with ectopic pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(2):179–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.11.005.
11. Birkhahn RH, Gaeta TJ, Van Deusen SK, Tloczkowski J. The ability of traditional vital signs and shock index to identify ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1293–6. https://doi.
org/10.1067/S0002- 9378(03)00663- X.
12. Frates MC, Doubilet PM, Peters HE, Benson CB. Adnexal sonographic ndings in ectopic preg­nancy and their correlation with tubal rupture and human chorionic gonadotropin levels. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(4):697–703. https://doi.org/10.7863/
ultra.33.4.697.
13. Popowski T, Huchon C, Toret-Labeeuw F, Chantry AA, Aegerter P, Fauconnier A. Hemoperitoneum assessment in ectopic pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2012;116(2):97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijgo.2011.09.019.
14. Fauconnier A, Mabrouk A, Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Ville Y. Ultrasound assessment of haemoperito­neum in ectopic pregnancy: derivation of a prediction
308
T. Fisher and K. Powell
model. World J Emerg Surg. 2007;2(1):23. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1749- 7922- 2- 23.
15. Spandorfer SD, Menzin AW, Barnhart KT, LiVolsi VA, Pfeifer SM. Efcacy of frozen-section evalua­tion of uterine curettings in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(3):603–5.
https://doi.org/10.1053/ob.1996.v175.a73599.
16. Donnez J, Nisolle M. 2 endoscopic manage­ment of ectopic pregnancy. Baillières Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;8(4):707–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0950- 3552(05)80051- 3.
17. Rizzuto MI, Macrae R, Odejinmi F.Persistent ecto­pic pregnancy following ipsilateral “salpingec­tomy”. Gynecol Surg. 2007;4(4):305–7. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10397- 007- 0298- 1.
18. Ozcan MCH, Wilson JR, Frishman GN.A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatment of ecto­pic pregnancy with salpingectomy versus salpingos­tomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(3):656–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.014.
19. Spiegelberg O. Zur casuistik der ovarialschwanger­schaft. Arch Gynaekol. 1878;13:73.
20. Bollig KJ, Schust DJ.Rening angular pregnancy diag­nosis in the rst trimester: a case series of expectant management. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(1):175–84.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003595.
21. Grandelis A, Shaffer R, Tonick S. Uncommon presentations of ectopic pregnancy. J Gynecol Surg. 2022;38(3):185–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/
gyn.2022.0016.
22. Lee MH, Im SY, Kim MK, Shin SY, Park WI. Comparison of laparoscopic cornual resection and cornuotomy for interstitial pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):397–401. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.11.016.
23. Liao CY, Tse J, Sung SY, Chen SH, Tsui WH.Cornual wedge resection for interstitial pregnancy and post­operative outcome. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(3):342–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12497.
24. Kaur N, Reid F, Ma K. Ovarian ectopic pregnancy: laparoscopic excision and ovarian conservation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(6):1006. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.017.