Share This Article:

Medical versus surgical treatment for early pregnancy loss in infertile patients: Which approach facilitates more rapid return to subsequent treatment cycle?

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:270KB) PP. 356-360
DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2012.24074    3,416 Downloads   5,073 Views

ABSTRACT

Patients and physicians confront a challenging dynamic when an early pregnancy loss (EPL) occurs after fertility treatment (FT). Our study focused on the time to resumption of FT in patients managed medically (Cytotec) compared to in those managed surgically with dilatation and curettage (D&C). A retrospective analysis from 2003-2010 of patients receiving treatment for an EPL. Misoprostol (Cytotec) patients were compared with a randomly selected control group (D&C). Both the time from the date of treatment to the date at which βhCG reached <5 mIU/mL and the time until a patient resumed FT was evaluated. We compared the rate of retained product of conception (RPOC) between the 2 groups. Statistical analysis of data was conducted by student-t Test and x2. No statistical significance was observed for resumption of FT between groups. Cytotec group had a greater maintenance of retained products of conception versus D&C population (26% vs 2%; p = 0.01). More D&C patients received karyotype results (68% vs 5%). A significant difference was not found in resumption time to the next fertility treatment between the medically and surgical treatment. More medically managed patients RPOC requiring D&C. Although a D&C is more likely to provide karyotype results, medical management is a viable alternative.

Cite this paper

Vallejo, V. , G. Cotton, H. , A. Lee, J. , Cervantes, E. , Sandler, B. and Copperman, A. (2012) Medical versus surgical treatment for early pregnancy loss in infertile patients: Which approach facilitates more rapid return to subsequent treatment cycle?. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2, 356-360. doi: 10.4236/ojog.2012.24074.

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.