Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ectopic and Heterotopic Pregnancies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Non-Obstetric Surgery During Pregnancy

  • 741 Accesses

Abstract

Ectopic pregnancy is a common and serious problem, with a significant morbidity rate and the potential for maternal death. The incidence of extrauterine pregnancy (EUP) is listed at 10–20 per 1000 pregnancies. In 95–97% of cases, this will be a tubal pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. If a woman of reproductive age presents with abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, syncope, or hypotension, the physician should have ectopic pregnancy in mind. Many patients have no documented risk factors and no physical indications of ectopic pregnancy. A combination of β-hCG titers with transvaginal ultrasonography (USG) is recommended whenever ectopic pregnancy is suspected. Earlier diagnosis, together with laparoscopy, led to the current standard of minimally invasive and tube-sparing diagnosis and treatment. In a symptomatic patient, the following applies: there is a suspicion of an EUP if the serum β-hCG value is above 1500 IU/L and the uterine cavity is seen as empty in vaginal sonography, without previous severe bleeding. Management is dictated by the clinical presentation, serum β-hCG levels, and transvaginal USG findings. MTX, as a single intramuscular injection, can be given to women who are hemodynamically stable and treatment adherent and have an initial serum β-hCG concentration of less than 5000 IU/L and no USG evidence of fetal cardiac activity. Patients who do not meet these criteria should be treated surgically, in most cases, by laparoscopy. Laparoscopic surgery is the cornerstone of treatment in the majority of women with tubal pregnancy. Surgical treatment is particularly appropriate for women who are hemodynamically unstable or unlikely to be adherent to posttreatment monitoring and those who do not have immediate access to medical care. The choice of treatment should be guided by the patient’s preference after a detailed discussion about monitoring, outcomes, and the risks and benefits of both approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. King L, Nezhat C, Nezhat F, et al. Laparoscopic access. In: Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C, editors. Nezhat’s video-assisted and robotic-assisted laparoscopy and hysteroscopy, 4th ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alalade AO, Smith FJE, Kendall CE, Odejinmi F. Evidence-based management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(8):982–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ramkrishna J, Kan GR, Reidy KL, Ang WC, Palma-Dias R. Comparison of management regimens following ultrasound diagnosis of nontubal ectopic pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14752. [Epub ahead of print]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Riaz RM, Williams TR, Craig BM, Myers DT. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: imaging features, current treatment options, and clinical outcomes. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:2589–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tenore JL. Ectopic pregnancy. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61:1080–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dart RG, Kaplan B, Varaklis K. Predictive value of history and physical examination in patients with suspected ectopic pregnancy. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33:283–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hajenius PJ, Mol F, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Ankum WM, van der Veen F. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD000324.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Spandorfer SD, Barnhart KT. Role of previous ectopic pregnancy in altering the presentation of suspected ectopic pregnancy. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:133–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Murray H, Baakdah H, Bardell T, Tulandi T. Diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. CMAJ. 2005;173(8):905–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A, Lu C, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D, et al. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1404–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Preisler J, Kopeika J, Ismail L, Vathanan V, Farren J, Abdallah Y, et al. Defining safe criteria to diagnose miscarriage: prospective observational multicentre study. BMJ. 2015;h4579:351.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Srisajjakul S, Prapaisilp P, Bangchokdee S. Magnetic resonance imaging in tubal and non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. Eur J Radiol. 2017;93:76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Elson J, Tailor A, Banerjee S, Salim R, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: prediction of successful outcome using decision tree analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:552–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage: diagnosis and initial management in early pregnancy of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. NICE clinical guideline 154. Manchester: NICE; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kirk E, van Calster B, Condous G, Papageorghiou AT, Gevaert O, van Huffel S, et al. Ectopic pregnancy: using the b-hCG ratio to select women for expectant or medical management. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:264–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barnhart KT, Gosman G, Ashby R, Sammel M. The medical management of ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis comparing “single dose” and “multidose” regimens. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:778–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pansky M, Bukovsky I, Golan A, et al. Local methotrexate injection: a nonsurgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161:393–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fernandez H, Baton C, Beniflan JL, Frydman R, Lelaidier C. Methotrexate treatment of ectopic pregnancy: 100 cases treated by primary transvaginal injection under sonographic control. Fertility & Sterility. 1993;59:773–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Egarter C, Husslein P. Treatment of tubal pregnancy by prostaglandins. Lancet. 1988;14:1104–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lang P, Weiss PAM, Mayer HO. Local application of hyperosmolar glucose solution in tubal pregnancy. Lancet. 1989;2(8668):922–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tzafettas J, Anapliotis S, Zournatzi V, Boucklis A, Oxouzoglou N, Bondis J. Transvaginal intra amniotic injection of methotrexate in early ectopic pregnancy. Advantages over the laparoscopic approach. Early Hum Dev. 1994;39:101–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ugur M, Yesilyurt H, Soysal S, Gokmen O. Prophylactic vasopressin during laparoscopic salpingotomy for ectopic pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3:365–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yao M, Tulandi T. Current status of surgical and nonsurgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:421–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Elson CJ, Salim R, Potdar N, Chetty M, Ross JA, Kirk EJ. Diagnosis and Management of Ectopic Pregnancy: green-top guideline no. 21. BJOG. 2016;123(13):e15-e55.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laparoscopic removal of an ectopic pregnancy. In: Wallwiener D, Becker S. Atlas of gynecologic surgery. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Matera C, Veit CR. Sonographic evolution of cornual pregnancies treated without surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:1044–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Faraj R, Steel M. Management of cornual (interstitial) pregnancy. Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;9:249–55.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Monteagudo A, Minior VK, Stephenson C, Monda S, Timor-Tritsch IE. Non-surgical management of live ectopic pregnancy with ultrasound- guided local injection: a case series. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:282–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Damario M, Rock J. Chapter 34: ectopic pregnancy. In: Rock JJ, Jones HI, editors. TeLInde's operative gynecology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. p. 798–824.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cucinella G, Calagna G, Rotolo S, Granese R, Saitta S, Tonni G, et al. Interstitial pregnancy: a road map of surgical treatment based on a systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2014;78:141–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nezhat CH, Dun EC. Laparoscopically-assisted, hysteroscopic removal of an interstitial pregnancy with a fertility-preserving technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(6):1091–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Spiegelberg O. The casuistry of ovarian pregnancy. Archiv Fur Gynaekologie. 1878;13:73–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Poole A, Haas D, Magann EF. 2012. Early abdominal ectopic pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2012;74:249–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hailu FG, Yihunie GT, Essa AA, Tsega WK. Advanced abdominal pregnancy, with live fetus and severe preeclampsia, case report. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gerli S, Rossetti D, Baiocchi G, Clerici G, Unfer V, Di Renzo GC. Early ultrasonographic diagnosis and laparoscopic treatment of abdominal pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;113:103–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lockhat F, Corr P, Ramphal S, Moodley J. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of extra-uterine abdominal pregnancy. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:264–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Agarwal N, Odejinmi F. Early abdominal ectopic pregnancy: challenges, update and review of current management. Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;16:193–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shaw SW, Hsu JJ, Chueh HY, Han CM, Chen FC, Chang YL, et al. Management of primary abdominal pregnancy: twelve years of experience in a medical Centre. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:1058–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ying X, Zheng W, Zhao L, Zhou M, Chen Z. Clinical characteristics and salvage management of persistent cesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(8):1293–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gonzalez N, Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):731–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rheinboldt M, Osborn D, Delproposto Z. Cesarean section scar ectopic pregnancy: a clinical case series. J Ultrasound. 2015;18:191–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Huanxiao Z, Shuqin C, Hongye J, Hongzhe X, Gang N, Chenkag X, et al. Transvaginal hysterotomy for cesarean scar pregnancy in 40 consecutive cases. Gynecol Surg. 2015;12:45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ko JK, Li RH, Cheung VY. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a 10-year experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55:64–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Agarwal N, Shahid A, Odejinmi F. Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP): a rare case of complete scar dehiscence due to scar ectopic pregnancy and its management. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288:231–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Wu C, Li Y, Ye W, Ma W, Zhao D. Cook cervical ripening balloon successfully prevents excessive hemorrhage combined with ultrasound-guided suction curettage in the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(6):1043–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mollo A, Alviggi C, Conforti A, Insabato L, De Placido G. Intact removal of spontaneous twin ectopic cesarean scar pregnancy by office hysteroscopy: case report and literature review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:530–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Litwicka K, Greco E. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a review of management options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25:456–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sönmezer M, Taskin S, Atabekoğlu C, Güngör M, Unlü C. Laparoscopic management of rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy: case report and literature review. JSLS. 2006;10(3):396–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Fernandez H, Gervaise A. Ectopic pregnancies after infertility treatment: modern diagnosis and therapeutic strategy. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(6):503–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Tal J, Haddad S, Gordon N, Timor-Tritsch I. Heterotopic pregnancy after ovulation induction and assisted reproductive technologies: a literature review from 1971 to 1993. Fertil Steril. 1996;66:1–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bataille P, Reynard A, Ducarme G. Spontaneous heterotopic triplets—a review of literature. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017. pii: S2468-7847(17)30140-X.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Talbot K, Simpson R, Price N, Jackson SR. Heterotopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(1):7–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Habana A, Dokras A, Giraldo JL, Jones EE. Cornual heterotopic pregnancy: contemporary management options. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(5):1264–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Deffieux X, Ballester M, Collinet P, Fauconnier A. Pierre F; French National College of gynaecologists and obstetricians. Risks associated with laparoscopic entry: guidelines for clinical practice from the French college of gynaecologists and obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158(2):159–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kårhus LL, Egerup P, Skovlund CW, Lidegaard Ø. Impact of ectopic pregnancy for reproductive prognosis in next generation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(4):416–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hessel M, Buzink SN, Schoot D, Jakimowicz JJ. Face and construct validity of the SimSurgery SEP VR simulator for salpingectomy in case of ectopic pregnancy. J Gynecol Surg. 2012;28:411–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tong S, Skubisz MM, Horne AW. Molecular diagnostics and therapeutics for ectopic pregnancy. Mol Hum Reprod. 2015;21(2):126–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Capmas P, Fernandez H. Effectiveness of gefitinib in combination with methotrexate in the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Int J Womens Health. 2015;7:673–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lozeau AM, Potter B. Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy. Am Fam Physician. 2005;72(9):1707–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bakirkoy Hospital, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Cihat Unlu

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yeditepe University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gazi Yildirim

Authors
  1. Mehmet Cihat Unlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gazi Yildirim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ceana H. Nezhat

  2. Department of Surgery, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Youngstown, OH, USA

    Michael S. Kavic

  3. School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Raymond J. Lanzafame

  4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Michael K. Lindsay

  5. Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, LAC+USC Medical Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Travis M. Polk

Electronic Supplementary Material

Linear salpingotomy for tubal ampullary ectopic pregnancy (MPG 106880 kb)

Partial salpingectomy for tubal interstitial ectopic pregnancy (MPG 63596 kb)

Partial salpingectomy for tubal ampullary ectopic pregnancy. Patient had an ectopic pregnancy in the same tuba, and 1 year ago partial salpingectomy was performed. Ectopic mass can be seen at the distal blind end of the same tuba uterina (MPG 39392 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Unlu, M.C., Yildirim, G. (2019). Ectopic and Heterotopic Pregnancies. In: Nezhat, C., Kavic, M., Lanzafame, R., Lindsay, M., Polk, T. (eds) Non-Obstetric Surgery During Pregnancy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90752-9_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90752-9_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90751-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90752-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation