Caesarean scar pregnancy is one of the rarest forms of ectopic pregnancy. Little is known about its incidence and natural history. With increasing incidence of caesarean section worldwide, more and more cases are diagnosed and reported. Transvaginal ultrasound and colour flow Doppler provides a high diagnostic accuracy with very few false positives. A delay in diagnosis and/or treatment can lead to uterine rupture, major haemorrhage, hysterectomy and serious maternal morbidity. Early diagnosis can offer treatment options of avoiding uterine rupture and haemorrhage, thus preserving the uterus and future fertility. Management plan should be individually tailored. Available data suggest that termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice in the first trimester soon after the diagnosis.Expectant treatment has a poor prognosis because of risk of rupture. There are no reliable scientific data on the risk of recurrence of the condition in future pregnancy, role of the interval between the previous caesarean delivery and occurrence of caesarean scar pregnancy, and effect of caesarean wound closure technique on caesarean scar pregnancy. In this article, we aim to find the demography, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, most appropriate methods of diagnosis and management, with their implications in clinical practice for this condition.

Incomplete healing of the scar is a recognized sequel of Cesarean section (CS) and may be associated with

BACKGROUND Despite increasing popularity of prehospital tourniquet use in civilians, few studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tourniquet use. Furthermore, previous studies in civilian populations have focused on blunt trauma patients. The objective of this study was to determine if prehospital tourniquet use in patients with major penetrating trauma is associated with differences in outcomes compared to a matched control group. METHODS An 8-year retrospective analysis of adult patients with penetrating major extremity trauma amenable to tourniquet use (major vascular trauma, traumatic amputation and near-amputation) was performed at a Level I trauma center. Patients with prehospital tourniquet placement (TQ) were identified and compared to a matched group of patients without tourniquets (N-TQ). Univariate analysis was used to compare outcomes in the groups. RESULTS A total of 204 patients were matched with 127 (62.3%) in the prehospital TQ group. No differences in patient demographics or injury severity existed between the two groups. Average time from tourniquet application to arrival in the emergency department (ED) was 22.5 ± 1.3 minutes. Patients in the TQ group had higher average systolic blood pressure on arrival in the ED (120 ± 2 vs. 112 ± 2, p = 0.003). The TQ group required less total PRBCs (2.0 ± 0.1 vs. 9.3 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and FFP (1.4 ± 0.08 vs. 6.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.001). Tourniquets were not associated with nerve palsy (p = 0.330) or secondary infection (p = 0.43). Fasciotomy was significantly higher in the N-TQ group (12.6% vs. 31.4%, p < 0.0001) as was limb amputation (0.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that prehospital tourniquets could be safely used to control bleeding in major extremity penetrating trauma with no increased risk of major complications. Prehospital tourniquet use was also associated with increased systolic blood pressure on arrival to the ED, decreased blood product utilization and decreased incidence of limb related complications, which may lead to improved long-term outcomes and increased survival in trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, level IV.

No abstract