Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 14, 2022; 10(2): 547-553
Published online Jan 14, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.547
Table 1 Early scar pregnancy diagnoses by examination method, n (%)
Method
Cases
Accuracy
Missed diagnosis
Misdiagnosis
Intracavitary 6361 (96.83)0 (0.00)2 (3.17)
Transabdominal 6353 (84.13)3 (4.76)7 (11.11)
χ2 value4.5131.3661.915
P value0.0340.2420.166
Table 2 Examination methods and the diagnostic accuracy for early scar pregnancy types, n (%)
Methods
Cases
Gestational sac
Heterogeneous mass
Uterine cavity
Accuracy
Intracavitary 6342/42 (100.00)15/16 (93.75)4/5 (80.00)61/63 (96.83)
Transabdominal 6338/42 (90.48)12/16 (75.00)3/5 (60.00)53/63 (84.13)
χ2 value2.3630.9480.0004.513
P value0.1240.3301.0000.034
Table 3 Intracavitary ultrasound for diagnosing early scar pregnancy types
Types
Cases
Performance
Blood flow
Interval (cm)
Gestational sac42The gestational sac was located in the scar of the lower uterine segmentAbundant peripheral blood flow2.42 ± 0.50
Heterogeneous mass16The heterogeneous mass was located in the lower part of the anterior wall of uterus, protruding into the bladderAbundant internal and peripheral blood flow1.79 ± 0.30
Part of the uterine cavity5The gestational sac was located in the lower part of the uterine cavity and part in the scarAbundant internal and peripheral blood flow2.29 ± 0.28