Abstract：Objective To study the influence of the uterine scar pregnancy on the ways of delivery and outcome. Methods A retrospective survey was conducted of the patients who had been admitted to the obestetrics department of this hospital, all of whom had been under rules of regular inspection and had given birth to baby in the same hospital. The total sample included 322 cases of uterine scar pregnancy as the observation group, and 328 patients without uterine scar pregnancy as the control group by random. Comparison was made between the two groups in the ways of delivery and outcome of pregnancy. Results The comparisons of average age, average week of delivery, mean gravidity, mean parity between the two groups did not show statistically significant differences. 261 cases (81.1%) underwent cesaran section in the observation group, 173 cases (52.7%) did so in the control group, with statistically significant difference between the two groups. The incidence rates of placenta praevia and adherent placenta/implantation in the observation group were 13.7% and 9.0%, whereas those the incidences in the control group were 0.9% and 0.6%, the differences were statistically significant (χ2= 39.38, 25.22, P＜0.01). The incidence of hysterorrhexis and postpartum hemorrhage in the observation group was 1.6% and 10.9%, while those incidences in the control group was 0% and 2.7% in control group, the differences was statistically significant (χ2=5.13 and χ2=17.00, P＜0.05). The incidence of puerperal fever in the observation group was 11.5% and that incidence in the control group was 5.5%, the difference was statistically significant (χ2=7.56, P＜0.01). Conclusions The incidences of hysterorrhexis, postpartum hemorrhage, placenta praevia and adherent placenta/implantation in scarred uterus pregnancy is higher than those in the non-scarred uterus pregnancy. We advocate uterine still cesarean section deliveries for scar pregnant patients.
王心,方洁,尚丽新. 瘢痕子宫对再次妊娠分娩方式和结局的影响[J]. 武警医学, 2014, 25(12): 1239-1241.
WANG Xin, FANG Jie, and SHANG Lixin. Influence of uterine scar pregnancy on ways of delivery and outcome. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2014, 25(12): 1239-1241.
Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe H J, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus[J]. Lancet, 1996, 347( 8997) : 281-284.
[12]
Chattopadhyay S K, Kharif H, Sherbeeni M M. Placenta praevia and accrete after previous caesarean section[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 1993,52(3):151-156.
[5]
Martel M J, Mackinnon C J. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2005, 27: 164-188.
[6]
Chapman K, Meire H, Chapman R. The value of serial ultrasounds in the management of recurrent uterine scar rupture[J]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1994, 101(6): 549-551.
[13]
Seow K M, Cheng W C, Chuang J, et al. Methotrexate for cesareanscar pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryotransfer [J]. J Reprod Med, 2000,45(9):754-757.
Chattopadhyay S K, Kharif H, Sherbeeni M M. Placenta praevia and accrete after previous caesarean section[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 1993,52(3):151-156.
[13]
Seow K M, Cheng W C, Chuang J, et al. Methotrexate for cesareanscar pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryotransfer [J]. J Reprod Med, 2000,45(9):754-757.
[14]
Fylstra D L. Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a review [J]. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2002,57(8):537-543.
2014, Vol. 25 
