Clinical Efficacy of Laparoscopy and Hystroscopic Dilation and Curettage Procedure in Managing Cesarean Scar Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the success rate of laparoscopy and hysteroscopic Dilation & Curettage in treating cesarean scar pregnancy. Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried on patients suspicious to CSP referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz from Jun 2016 to March 2018. Gestational site was carefully evaluated by hysteroscopy and then curettage was carried out under laparoscopic guidance. The primary outcome in the study was time interval from treatment to hCG resolution. Moreover, the secondary outcomes were vaginal bleeding time and residual mass size. Results: In this study, 30 women with intrauterine CSP were evaluated. Of these, 5 had live embryos and 25 had dead fetuses. The success rate of treatment was 100%. Only one patient needed to transfusion. The mean and median duration of Bhcg resolution were 30.9 and 28 days, respectively. Moreover, The mean and median duration of vaginal bleeding were 30.9 and 28 days, respectively. The mean level of residual mass was 9.8 mm3 (ranged from 1 to 25 mm3). Conclusion: Overall, the findings of this study showed that D&C effectively treated CSP patients (100% success rate), reduced the time of Bhcg resolution and also reduced vaginal bleeding time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".