IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0332169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of laparoscopic tubal-preserving surgical management versus methotrexate therapy for tubal pregnancy: A conventional and network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Junwei Liao
  • Yong Lin
  • Yan Long

Abstract

Background: Tubal pregnancy is one of the common emergencies in obstetrics and gynecology. There are various treatment options for tubal pregnancy. However, there is no consensus on how patients should choose among the treatment options that preserve the fallopian tube. This study aims to investigate the difference in prognosis between different treatment options when the tube is preserved in patients with tubal pregnancy. Methods: We conducted a search for studies on tubal pregnancy in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Ultimately, we obtained 8 studies that met the screening criteria. The Jadad scale and NOS were used to evaluate the quality of the studies, and the evidence quality was evaluated and graded according to GRADE guidelines. Stata 17.0 software was used for data analysis. Result: A total of 8 studies involving 677 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed a significant overall difference in the failure rate between methotrexate treatment and salpingostomy for tubal pregnancy(OR=1.582, 95%CI(1.062, 2.358), p = 0.024). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that a single dose of methotrexate was associated with a higher failure rate compared to salpingostomy(OR = 2.044,95%CI(1.20, 3.47), p = 0.008). In contrast, two or more doses of methotrexate did not show a significant difference in failure rate compared to salpingostomy(OR = 1.130, 95% CI(0.62, 2.07), p = 0.692). However, salpingostomy combined with methotrexate showed a lower failure rate compared to salpingostomy alone(OR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.03–0.48), p = 0.003). Network meta-analysis indicated that the salpingostomy combined with methotrexate had the lowest failure rate, while there was no significant difference in failure rates between salpingostomy and methotrexate alone. Conclusion: For hemodynamically stable patients with a desire for future fertility, salpingostomy combined with methotrexate is an excellent option for treating tubal pregnancy. This approach has a lower failure rate compared to either methotrexate or salpingostomy alone and appears to have minimal impact on the patient’s quality of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Junwei Liao & Yong Lin & Yan Long, 2025. "Comparison of laparoscopic tubal-preserving surgical management versus methotrexate therapy for tubal pregnancy: A conventional and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0332169
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0332169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332169
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332169&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0332169?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0332169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.