OBJECTIVE: The probability of embryo implantation in an abnormal location is significantly higher in assisted reproductive technology (ART) than in natural pregnancies. Angular pregnancy is an eccentric intrauterine pregnancy with embryo implantation in the lateral superior angle of the uterine cavity. Cycle-level factors associated with angular pregnancy in patients conceived with ART needed to be explored.
METHODS: A total of 11 336 clinical pregnancies cycles were included. Angular pregnancy rate was compared among groups according to the type of embryos transferred. Among them, 53 cases of angular pregnancy and 159 cases of normal intrauterine pregnancy were screened out using propensity score matching. Risk factors of angular pregnancy were explored.
RESULTS: The angular pregnancy rate was 0.31% (14/4572) in the day 5 blastocyst transfer group, 0.58% (39/6764) in non-day 5 embryo transfer group, with 0.55% (29/5280) in day 3 embryo transfer and 0.67% (10/1484) in the day 6 blastocyst group, respectively. A multifactor regression analysis was performed and indicated that the number of embryos transferred was significantly associated with angular pregnancy (P = 0.031, OR, 2.23, 95% CI: 1.09-4.68).
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple embryo transfer could possibly be associated with an increased incidence of angular pregnancy in patients conceived with ART.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Angular pregnancy is an exceedingly rare diagnosis, with less than 100 reported cases. Angular pregnancy is important to distinguish from ectopic pregnancies due to the fact that they have the potential to be viable while true ectopic pregnancies do not. As such, angular pregnancy requires starkly different management. Inappropriate use of the terms angular, interstitial, and cornual indicates a general misunderstanding of what makes these diagnoses unique. Misunderstanding leads to misdiagnosis and consequent mismanagement. Our experience with cases of women with angular and interstitial ectopic pregnancies is instructive as it illustrates effective diagnosis and differing management of these two diagnoses. In the two angular pregnancy cases, transvaginal ultrasonography was employed to confirm the diagnosis, which showed a lack of the interstitial line sign, contiguity of the decidua and endometrium, and an endomyometrial mantle thickness between 5 and 8 mm. One patient\'s angular pregnancy ultimately ruptured and was successfully managed with fully robotic cornual resection and unilateral salpingectomy, while the other progressed to term normally without complication. The patient with an interstitial ectopic pregnancy was also managed surgically, although with laparoscopic cornuotomy and salpingectomy.

Angular pregnancy is a rare entity which is commonly confused with interstitial or cornual pregnancies. A lack of consensus about the specific ultrasound features of these 3 entities leads to inappropriate interchange between them among the literature. An angular pregnancy should be considered as a potentially viable intra-uterine eccentric pregnancy as it might be carried to term and result in a live-born baby whereas interstitial or cornual pregnancies should be considered as ectopic pregnancies which should be interrupted. We report here two cases of women at 8 weeks of pregnancy with an angular pregnancy diagnosed by vaginal 2D and 3D ultrasound and discuss about specific ultrasound features and alternative imaging modalities to distinguish it from interstitial and cornual pregnancies.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice it is an ongoing challenge to distinguish between angular pregnancy and interstitial pregnancy. With the three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being increasingly used, it is worth exploring its role in differentiating angular pregnancy from interstitial pregnancy. This study aims to investigate how 3D MRI can help reveal the differences between these two special pregnancies in the early diagnosis.
METHODS: We reviewed and analyzed the 3D MRI images of 50 patients with interstitial pregnancy and 55 patients with angular pregnancy retrospectively. Imaging features were identified to compare these two special pregnancies, and the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic performance.
RESULTS: The significant differences of the 3D MRI imaging features between interstitial pregnancy and angular pregnancy were found in the outline of uterus cavity (p < 0.001), involvement of junctional zone (p < 0.001), the signal of surroundings (p = 0.005), the relationship with round ligament (p = 0.042), and the overlying myometrial thickness (p = 0.041). Furthermore, the multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a series of significant indicators for angular pregnancy, including the junctional zone involvement, being-surrounded by hyper/iso-intensity on 3D images, and the asymmetric outline of uterus cavity. Combining these three imaging features, the AUC (Area under the Curve) of ROC curve was 0.87 in distinguishing interstitial pregnancy from angular pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that 3D MRI can help distinguish angular pregnancy from interstitial pregnancy in clinical practice, with the advantages that conventional MRI or ultrasound does not have. Through the significant image features, 3D MRI plays an important role in improving the timing of diagnosis, avoiding unnecessary interventions, and preventing hemorrhage in clinical practice.

Angular ectopic is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy which is diagnosed as intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasound but may rupture in second trimester leading to maternal mortality. We present a case of a 32-year-old primigravida who presented at 18 weeks gestation to the emergency department of national hospital Lahore with complaint of dizziness, sweating and epigastric pain for one hour. She had an episode of diarrhoea and vomiting at hospital followed by rapidly increased abdominal distension and signs of hypovolemic shock. Urgent ultrasound suggested rupture of posterior uterine wall and massive hemoperitoneum. An urgent laparotomy was done. Uterus was perforated by pregnancy posteriorly. baby was inside the sac and alive. But died soon after birth. Uterus was repaired in two layers. Stepwise devascularization of uterus was done due to continuous bleeding. 6 units whole blood 6 FFP were transfused. The abnormal location of this pregnancy makes it antenatal diagnosis difficult. A high index of suspicion is needed in pregnant women presenting in shock even when intrauterine location of pregnancy is diagnosed in first trimester.

To report a peculiar case of ultrasound diagnosis of spontaneous angular twin pregnancy. In literature, the terms \"angular,\" \"interstitial,\" and \"cornual\" pregnancies are often used inappropriately. Confusion in terminology may have contributed to difficulties in developing diagnostic ultrasound criteria to differentiate these ectopic pregnancies.
Case report.
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Community Hospital \"S. Maria delle Croci.\"
A 28-year-old patient with a previous cesarean delivery was admitted to our hospital for management of a presumed angular ectopic pregnancy. Transvaginal ultrasound confirmed an ectopic dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy eccentrically located in the right superior angle of the uterine cavity: the first gestational sac appeared to have right angular implantation, whereas the second gestational sac seemed to deepen inside the myometrium, with a thin myometrial margin of only 3 mm.
After discussing the risks, the patient requested to proceed with termination. A single intramuscular injection of 75 mg of methotrexate was administered, followed by ultrasound-guided hysterosuction after 19 days due to severe vaginal bleeding.
An early and accurate ultrasound diagnosis of a high-risk condition allowed for conservative medical treatment.
The serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels progressively decreased. After 1 month, a clinical and ultrasound examination showed a regular endometrial line with a regular reappearance of menstrual bleeding.
Although there are remarkable advances in ultrasound techniques, angular pregnancy remains a condition of difficult diagnosis and management; it is potentially dangerous and may lead to severe complications. An early and accurate diagnosis of this condition is necessary to avoid complications and individualize the subsequent management.

Heterotopic pregnancy is a rare, difficult to diagnose and life-threatening pathology, which requires timely decisions made by an experienced multidisciplinary team. In this type of multiple pregnancy there are both intrauterine and ectopic pregnancies present. Its incidence increases in pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology or in pregnancies with ovulation induction. This article presents an angular heterotopic pregnancy case in a 34-year-old multigravida. The patient was admitted on the 14th week of gestation due to abdominal pain on the left side with suspicion of heterotopic pregnancy. Transabdominal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed to confirm the diagnosis of heterotopic angular pregnancy in the left cornu of the uterus. Multidisciplinary team made a decision to keep monitoring the growth of both pregnancies by ultrasound while maternal vitals were stable. Due to intensifying abdominal pain, diagnostic laparoscopy was performed. No signs of uterine rupture were observed, and no additional surgical procedures were performed. Maternal status and ultrasonographic findings were closely monitored. The mass in the left cornu of the uterus did not change significantly and the fetal growth of the intrauterine pregnancy matched its gestational age throughout pregnancy. At the 41st week of gestation, a healthy female neonate was born via spontaneous vaginal delivery. The incidence rate of heterotopic pregnancy tends to grow due to an increased number of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology and ovulation induction. It is important to always assess the risk factors. The main methods for diagnosing heterotopic pregnancies are ultrasonography and MRI. The main management tactics for heterotopic pregnancy include expectant management as well as surgical or medical termination of the ectopic pregnancy. Expectant management may be chosen as an option only in a limited number of cases, if the clinical situation meets the specific criteria. When applicable, expectant management may reduce the frequency of unnecessary interventions and help to prevent patients from its complications.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopic morcellation is an alternative approach for the removal of placental remnants, given its advantages of safety, efficiency and good reproductive outcomes. This superiority can be even more obvious for removing persistent placental remnants in the lateral angle of the uterine cavity after repeated dilation and curettage (D&C) of an angular pregnancy, which is rarely reported.
METHODS: Two patients who were both initially misdiagnosed as having missed intrauterine miscarriages underwent repeated suction-assisted D&C procedures and were found to have persistent placental remnants in the lateral angles of the uterine cavity.
METHODS: Ultrasound and hysteroscopy evaluations showed that placental remnants in both cases were in the lateral uterine angles and protruding to the interstitial myometrium around the fallopian tube. We corrected the diagnosis to that of angular pregnancy according to a comprehensive consideration of the ultrasound, hysteroscopy and pathology results.
METHODS: We performed MyoSure hysteroscopic morcellation for both patients and the placental remnants were removed completely without any complication.
RESULTS: The patients were both scheduled for a second-look hysteroscopy 1 to 3 months after surgery, which revealed normal morphology of the uterine cavities and tubal ostia. The patients both achieved normal intrauterine pregnancies several months after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Hysteroscopic morcellation is a good alternative approach for the removal of placental remnants and should be considered in cases in which there might be a high risk of incomplete evacuation or a high risk of uterine perforation, especially in cases of angular pregnancy.