On this page
Quick Reference
Overview and Recommendations
Background
- •Define ectopic pregnancy (EP) as any pregnancy where the blastocyst implants outside the endometrial cavity, most commonly in the ampullary region of the . While tubal pregnancies comprise the vast majority, clinicians must recognize non-tubal sites including the cervix, ovary, cesarean section scar, and abdominal cavity, as these often carry a higher risk of massive hemorrhage.
- •Identify high-risk populations, specifically those with a history of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), previous ectopic pregnancy (which increases risk 4- to 13-fold), or prior tubal surgery. Modern risk factors include the use of (ART), which increases the risk of —the simultaneous occurrence of an intrauterine and extrauterine gestation—to nearly 1% of ART pregnancies.
- •Recognize the clinical significance of the 'Pregnancy of Unknown Location' (PUL), a transient state where a patient has a positive pregnancy test but no visible gestation on ultrasound. Approximately 8-10% of early pregnancy evaluations begin as a PUL, requiring serial monitoring to differentiate between an early intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), a failing IUP, or an occult ectopic pregnancy.
- •Understand the impact of lifestyle and mechanical factors, such as current cigarette smoking, which impairs tubal ciliary beat frequency, and the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs). While IUDs are highly effective, any pregnancy that occurs with an IUD in situ has a significantly higher probability of being ectopic.
- •Consider the genetic and molecular drivers, such as variants in the MUC1 gene, which may alter the receptivity of the fallopian tube mucosa and facilitate inappropriate embryo adhesion outside the uterus.
Evaluation
- •Suspect ectopic pregnancy in any individual of reproductive age presenting with the classic triad of amenorrhea, vaginal bleeding, and abdominal pain, though many patients remain asymptomatic until the point of rupture.
- •Assess hemodynamic stability immediately by checking for hypotension, tachycardia, and signs of peritonitis. Shoulder pain may indicate hemoperitoneum causing diaphragmatic irritation via the phrenic nerve.
- •Perform a thorough physical examination, noting that a palpable adnexal mass is present in less than 50% of cases and cervical motion tenderness may mimic .
- •Obtain a quantitative serum β-hCG level as the first laboratory step. While no single value is diagnostic, a level above the 'discriminatory zone' (typically 1,500 to 3,500 mIU/mL) should generally allow for the visualization of an intrauterine gestational sac on ultrasound.
- •Order a transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) as the primary imaging modality. Look for the 'bagel sign' (an adnexal mass with a hyperechoic ring around a gestational sac) or the 'blob sign' (a non-specific solid adnexal mass), which are highly suggestive of EP.
- •Monitor serial β-hCG levels every 48 hours in stable patients with a PUL. A rise of less than 35% over 48 hours is highly suggestive of a non-viable pregnancy, though it does not distinguish between a miscarriage and an ectopic pregnancy.
- •Evaluate the endometrial stripe; a thin stripe or a 'pseudogestational sac' (a fluid collection within the cavity without a yolk sac or double decidual sign) can be misleading and should not be mistaken for a true IUP.
- •Screen for specific rare types, such as a (CSEP), by looking for a gestational sac located within the niche of a previous uterine scar with thinned overlying myometrium.
- •Rule out heterotopic pregnancy in ART patients even if an intrauterine pregnancy is visualized, as the presence of one does not exclude the other in this high-risk group.
- •Utilize the M4 model or similar clinical prediction tools to risk-stratify PUL cases into those likely to resolve spontaneously versus those requiring intervention.
- •Obtain baseline labs including a complete blood count (CBC), blood type and Rh screen, and renal/hepatic function tests if medical management is being considered.
Management
- •Administer RhD immunoglobulin (50 mcg to 300 mcg IM) to all Rh-negative, unsensitized women with a diagnosed or suspected ectopic pregnancy to prevent future alloimmunization.
- •Stabilize hemodynamically unstable patients with rapid crystalloid infusion and immediate surgical consultation for exploratory laparotomy or laparoscopy to achieve hemostasis.
- •Initiate medical management with Methotrexate 50 mg/m² IM (single-dose protocol) for stable patients who meet criteria: β-hCG < 5,000 mIU/mL, no fetal cardiac activity, adnexal mass < 4 cm, and no contraindications to folate antagonists.
- •Monitor Methotrexate efficacy by measuring β-hCG on Day 4 and Day 7 post-injection. A decrease of < 15% between Day 4 and Day 7 requires a second dose of Methotrexate 50 mg/m² or surgical intervention.
- •Counsel patients on Methotrexate restrictions, including the avoidance of folic acid supplements, NSAIDs (which may increase methotrexate toxicity), alcohol, and sunlight (to prevent dermatitis).
- •Perform laparoscopic salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) as the preferred surgical treatment for most patients, especially if the tube is ruptured or the patient has completed childbearing.
- •Consider laparoscopic salpingostomy (incision and removal of products of conception while leaving the tube) for patients desiring future fertility with a damaged or absent contralateral tube, but warn of the 5-15% risk of persistent trophoblastic tissue.
- •Track β-hCG levels weekly following salpingostomy or medical management until the level is < 5 mIU/mL to ensure complete resolution and rule out persistent disease.
- •Manage (CSEP) with specialized techniques such as ultrasound-guided suction curettage, often preceded by uterine artery embolization (UAE) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) to minimize blood loss.
- •Avoid expectant management unless the patient is asymptomatic, has a low and declining β-hCG (< 200 mIU/mL), and is willing to comply with rigorous follow-up.
- •Refer patients with complex or rare ectopic sites (e.g., abdominal, retroperitoneal) to tertiary centers with multidisciplinary surgical teams including vascular surgery and interventional radiology.
- •Advise patients to use effective contraception for at least 3 months following Methotrexate therapy to allow for drug clearance and resolution of the pregnancy site before attempting conception again.
- •Escalate to surgery if the patient develops increasing abdominal pain, significant free fluid on ultrasound, or a rising β-hCG despite medical therapy.
- •Provide psychological support and counseling regarding the risk of recurrence, which is approximately 10-15% in subsequent pregnancies.
Board Review — High Yield
- •Bagel sign — A hyperechoic ring surrounding an extrauterine gestational sac, highly specific for tubal pregnancy.
- •Arias-Stella reaction — Benign endometrial changes (hyperchromatic nuclei) associated with the presence of chorionic tissue, often seen in ectopic pregnancy.
- •Shoulder pain — Signifies hemoperitoneum and phrenic nerve irritation (Kehr's sign).
- •Methotrexate Day 4/7 rule — A drop of <15% in hCG between these days indicates treatment failure and the need for a second dose or surgery.
- •Heterotopic pregnancy — Simultaneous IUP and EP; incidence is 1 in 30,000 naturally but up to 1% in ART patients.
- •Pseudogestational sac — Intrauterine fluid collection in EP that lacks a yolk sac or double decidual sign.
- •Interstitial pregnancy — Implantation in the proximal tube; carries a high risk of late rupture (12-16 weeks) and massive hemorrhage due to proximity to uterine arteries.
Deep Dive — Evidence Details
Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology
- ▸Ectopic pregnancy occurs in approximately 2% of all pregnancies and is the primary cause of first-trimester maternal mortality [5][19].
- ▸Tubal implantations account for 96-99% of cases, but uterine extraendometrial types (cervical, scar, interstitial) are increasing due to ART and prior surgeries [3][5].
- ▸For every maternal death from pregnancy complications, including ectopic rupture, there are 20-30 maternal near-miss cases [1].
Ectopic pregnancy (EP) is defined as the implantation and development of a gestational sac or pregnancy residue outside the endometrial cavity of the uterine body [5]. This condition represents a significant obstetric challenge, as the extrauterine environment typically cannot support the vascular and structural demands of a growing embryo, leading to potential [19]D.
Synonyms and Nomenclature
Also Called: Extrauterine pregnancy, eccyesis, or specific anatomical descriptors such as tubal pregnancy, cornual pregnancy, or cervical pregnancy depending on the site of implantation [3][5].
Clinical Phases and Definitions
Understanding the progression of an ectopic pregnancy requires defining the clinical stages used in diagnostic and algorithms:
- Pregnancy of Unknown Location (PUL): A transient state where a patient has a positive biochemical pregnancy test (e.g., elevated ), but the pregnancy cannot be visualized as either intrauterine or extrauterine on transvaginal ultrasound [24]D. Approximately 8.5% to 10% of patients presenting in the first trimester may initially be classified as PUL [16][24]D.
- Active Ectopic Pregnancy: A state characterized by rising or high levels of and/or ultrasound evidence of a viable embryo (e.g., fetal heartbeat) or an expanding gestational sac. Expectant management is strictly contraindicated in active cases [5].
- Plateauing/Resolving Ectopic Pregnancy: A condition where levels remain stable or begin to decline spontaneously, suggesting a non-viable or failing pregnancy that may potentially be managed expectantly under strict surveillance [5].
- Nadir: In the context of medical management (e.g., ), the lowest point of before successful resolution or the point of therapeutic failure.
- Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy: A surgical emergency where the implantation site (most commonly the ) loses structural integrity, leading to intraperitoneal hemorrhage and hemodynamic instability [17].
Classification by Anatomical Site
Ectopic pregnancies are classified based on the specific site of blastocyst implantation. While the majority occur within the fallopian tubes, "uterine extraendometrial" forms are increasingly recognized due to the rise in uterine surgeries and (ART) [3].
| Type | Subtype/Location | Key Distinguishing Feature | Frequency/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tubal | Ampullary, Isthmic, Fimbrial | Implantation in the extra-myometrial portion of the tube [5]. | 96% to 99% of all EP cases [5]. |
| Interstitial | Cornual | Implantation within the proximal, intramural segment of the tube [3]. | High risk of late rupture and severe hemorrhage [12]. |
| Cervical | Cervical canal | Implantation below the internal os of the cervix [14]C. | Historically required ; now managed with [14]C. |
| Cesarean Scar | Scar Niche | Implantation within the defect of a previous cesarean section scar [13]C[23]D. | Rising incidence linked to increasing C-section rates [13]C. |
| Intramural | Myometrium | Implantation completely within the myometrium, separate from the cavity [15]C. | Classified using FIGO leiomyoma mapping (Types 2-5) [15]C. |
| Heterotopic | Combined | Coexistence of an intrauterine pregnancy and an ectopic pregnancy [10]. | Incidence is 1 in 30,000 naturally, but up to 1% in ART [10]. |
and Global Trends
The global prevalence of ectopic pregnancy is approximately 2% of all pregnancies [5]. However, incidence rates vary significantly by region and population risk factors. In tertiary care settings in developing regions, the incidence has been reported as high as 2.38% of live births [17].
Incidence and Mortality
Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal death during the first trimester [17][19]D. According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 study, while age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) have generally declined globally since 1990, significant health inequalities persist between high-income and low-income regions [19]D. In East Africa, for every maternal death, there are an estimated 20 to 30 "Maternal Near-Miss" (MNM) cases—women who survive life-threatening complications like ruptured EP [1].
Risk Factors and Drivers
The increasing incidence of rare ectopic variants (cervical, cesarean scar, and heterotopic) is largely attributed to two modern medical trends:
- Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART): Procedures such as (IVF) and embryo transfer are associated with higher rates of heterotopic and cervical pregnancies [10][14]C.
- Uterine Surgery: Previous cesarean sections are the primary driver for Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy (CSEP), where the blastocyst implants in the thinned myometrium of the scar niche [13]C[23]D.
Other established risk factors include a history of Endometriosis , which may alter tubal motility through chronic inflammation [6], and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), which has been linked to a higher risk of early pregnancy loss and ectopic implantation in nationwide cohort studies [9]. Patients with a history of tubal surgery or a previous ectopic pregnancy are at the highest risk for recurrence [11].
| Type | Location | Clinical Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Tubal | Ampulla (most common), isthmus, or fimbriae | Standard ectopic; 96-99% of cases [5]. |
| Interstitial | Myometrial segment of the fallopian tube | High vascularity; risk of massive hemorrhage upon rupture [3]. |
| Cervical | Endocervical canal | Risk of profuse vaginal bleeding; often requires arterial embolization [14]C. |
| Cesarean Scar | Previous C-section scar niche | Risk of uterine rupture and placenta accreta spectrum [13]C. |
| Heterotopic | Intrauterine + Extrauterine | Challenging management to preserve the intrauterine pregnancy [10]. |
Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Etiology
- ▸The risk of ectopic pregnancy is nearly 4 times higher in women with a previous history of the condition.
- ▸Cesarean scar pregnancy is an increasingly common subtype due to rising global cesarean delivery rates, now exceeding 32% in some regions.
- ▸Genetic variants in the MUC1 gene and a displaced endometrial window of implantation are emerging as key non-mechanical etiologies.
Ectopic pregnancy (EP) remains a leading cause of during the first trimester, characterized by the implantation of a blastocyst outside the functional endometrial lining of the uterine cavity [34][35]. The global burden of EP has shown significant temporal and geographic variation; between 1990 and 2019, while the age-standardized incidence rates in some regions stabilized, the absolute number of cases has fluctuated alongside shifts in reproductive health access and the prevalence of (PID) [54]D.
Incidence and Demographic Distribution
The incidence of EP is approximately 1% to 2% of all spontaneous pregnancies in the general population [34]. However, this rate increases significantly in specific subpopulations. In patients undergoing (ART), the incidence of EP following euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET) is approximately 1.19% [26]. Specific subtypes, such as (CSP), have seen a sharp rise in incidence, correlating with the 50% increase in global cesarean section rates over the last decade, which reached 32.1% in 2021 [55]D.
Demographic risk is most pronounced in women older than 35 years, where the risk of CSP and tubal EP increases significantly [33][41]. Conversely, a low body mass index (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) is also associated with an increased risk of EP following embryo transfer (aOR 1.45), suggesting that nutritional status and metabolic health influence tubal and endometrial receptivity [30].
Major Risk Factors and Odds Ratios
The etiology of EP is multifactorial, involving a combination of mechanical tubal obstruction, altered tubal motility, and impaired endometrial receptivity.
| Risk Factor | Odds Ratio (OR) / Relative Risk (RR) | Evidence Level |
|---|---|---|
| Previous Ectopic Pregnancy | OR 3.9 - 13.0 [34][41] | 2a |
| Previous Tubal Surgery | OR 2.5 - 4.7 [34] | 2a |
| Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) | OR 2.5 [34][44] | 2b |
| Chlamydia trachomatis Infection | OR 3.03 [42] | 2a |
| Endometriosis | OR 2.66 [40] | 2a |
| Smoking (Current) | OR 1.7 - 3.9 [34][39] | 2a |
| Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) | aOR 2.07 [51]D | 5 |
| Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) | OR 2.0 - 4.0 [37][51]D | 2b |
Tubal and Pelvic Pathology
Mechanical interference with ovum transport is the primary driver of tubal EP. , often silent, induces immunological and molecular changes in the fallopian tube, leading to ciliary dysfunction and structural adhesions [45]D. Infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are strongly predictive of EP, as they cause chronic inflammatory damage to the tubal mucosa [42][49]D. Previous tubal surgeries, including salpingectomy for a prior EP, do not eliminate the risk of future EP; patients may still develop a tubal stump pregnancy or an interstitial pregnancy [27][38]. In ART cycles, tubal factor infertility and pelvic adhesions increase the risk of (simultaneous intrauterine and extrauterine gestations) with an OR of 4.185 and 5.552, respectively [37].
Assisted Reproduction and Endometrial Factors
In the context of ART, the risk of EP is influenced by the uterine environment and embryo transfer (ET) parameters. A displaced "window of implantation" (WOI) is significantly associated with EP, suggesting that if the endometrium is not receptive at the time of transfer, the embryo may migrate into the fallopian tubes [29]. Furthermore, an endometrial thickness of < 8 mm or a "Type C" endometrial pattern on ultrasound during fresh ET cycles increases the risk of EP by an adjusted OR of 3.368 [53]D. Interestingly, frozen embryo transfer (FET) appears to reduce the risk of EP compared to fresh cycles (aOR 2.17 for fresh vs. frozen), likely due to a more physiological hormonal environment [51]D.
Lifestyle and Contraceptive Factors
Smoking is a well-established modifiable risk factor. The mechanism involves nicotine-mediated alterations in tubal motility and ciliary beat frequency [32][39]. While (IUDs) are highly effective contraceptives, if a pregnancy does occur with an IUD in situ, the probability of it being ectopic is higher than in the general population [46]D. Recent data suggests that levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs (especially the 13.5 mg dose) may carry a higher relative risk of EP compared to copper IUDs if failure occurs [46]D.
Genetic Etiology
Emerging evidence highlights a genetic predisposition to EP. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified significant associations with the MUC1 (mucin 1) gene [35]. MUC1 is expressed in the fallopian tube and endometrium, where it plays a role in cell signaling and preventing inappropriate embryo adhesion; variants in this gene may facilitate ectopic implantation [35].
Protocol for Epidemiological Risk Stratification
Clinicians should utilize the following steps to identify high-risk patients during early pregnancy assessment:
- Step 1: Surgical and Infection History: Screen for previous EP, tubal surgeries (including ligations or resections), and history of PID or confirmed Chlamydia infections [34][42].
- Step 2: Conception Method Assessment: Identify if the pregnancy resulted from ART (IVF/ICSI), as these patients require early ultrasound regardless of symptoms [37][51]D.
- Step 3: Lifestyle and Contraceptive Review: Document current smoking status and whether an IUD was in place at the time of conception [32][46]D.
- Step 4: Clinical Correlation: In patients with risk factors, correlate lower-than-expected serum hCG levels with early transvaginal ultrasound to rule out EP before symptoms of rupture occur [26][27].
| Factor | Odds Ratio (OR) | Evidence Level |
|---|---|---|
| Previous Ectopic Pregnancy | 3.9 - 13.0 | 2a |
| Current Smoking | 1.7 - 3.9 | 2a |
| Endometriosis | 2.66 | 2a |
| Chlamydia Infection | 3.03 | 2a |
| PCOS | 2.07 | 5 |
| Low BMI (<18.5) | 1.45 | 2b |
Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions
- ▸Laparoscopy is the gold standard for stable patients, offering higher tubal patency and spontaneous pregnancy rates than medical management.
- ▸Salpingectomy is generally preferred over salpingostomy due to the risk of persistent trophoblastic tissue and postoperative hydrosalpinx.
- ▸Non-tubal ectopics, such as Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP), often require specialized pretreatment (UAE or HIFU) to prevent massive intraoperative hemorrhage.
Surgical intervention remains the cornerstone of for (EP), particularly in cases of hemodynamic instability, tubal rupture, or failure of medical therapy [17][71]D. While medical management with methotrexate is often preferred for its non-invasive nature, surgical approaches offer definitive treatment and may be associated with higher subsequent tubal patency and spontaneous pregnancy rates [56][64]. The choice of procedure—laparoscopy, laparotomy, or emerging techniques like vNOTES—depends on the patient's clinical stability, the location of the pregnancy, and the desire for future fertility [61][72]D.
Step 1: Initial Assessment and Severity Classification
Clinicians must first determine the necessity of surgical intervention over medical management. Surgery is indicated if any of the following criteria are met: β-hCG > 5000 mIU/mL, an adnexal sac diameter ≥ 40 mm, presence of embryonic cardiac activity, or evidence of hemoperitoneum [60].
- Hemodynamically Unstable: Patients presenting with signs of ruptured EP (e.g., severe abdominal pain, hypotension, tachycardia) require immediate exploratory laparotomy [17][66]C.
- Hemodynamically Stable: Laparoscopy is the gold standard for stable patients due to reduced perioperative morbidity and faster recovery [58][71]D.
- Disposition: Unstable patients must be managed in the operating room (OR) with multidisciplinary support, including anesthesia and potentially cardiology for patients with complex comorbidities [66]C. Stable patients may be managed on a surgical ward postoperatively.
Step 2: Selection of Surgical Approach
While conventional laparoscopy is the standard of care, the surgical approach should be tailored to the specific case [71]D.
- Laparoscopy: Recognized as the safest and most effective operative treatment for extrauterine EP [71]D. It is associated with a 2.10 times higher spontaneous pregnancy rate compared to medical management [64].
- vNOTES (Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery): An emerging minimally invasive technique that utilizes vaginal entry to the abdomen. Studies indicate vNOTES has a significantly shorter mean surgical time (39.4 minutes vs 57.3 minutes for laparoscopy) and similar postoperative sexual function scores [62][72]D. It is a viable alternative for tubal EP in selected patients [61][63].
- Laparotomy: Reserved for massive hemorrhage, extensive adhesions, or rare cases like advanced abdominal pregnancy where risk of uncontrollable bleeding from the implantation site is high [68]C[77]C.
Step 3: Procedural Execution (Salpingectomy vs. Salpingostomy)
The decision to remove or conserve the fallopian tube is critical for future fertility [71]D.
- Salpingectomy: The preferred surgical treatment for tubal EP, especially if the contralateral tube is healthy [71]D. It involves complete removal of the affected tube, eliminating the risk of persistent trophoblastic tissue in that site.
- Salpingostomy: Involves a linear incision to remove the products of conception while leaving the tube intact. This is considered when the contralateral tube is absent or damaged [71]D. However, it carries a risk of surgically-induced ampullary hydrosalpinx, which may negatively impact future IVF outcomes [70]D.
- Anatomical Considerations: Isthmic pregnancies exhibit deeper trophoblastic infiltration into the muscular (38.67%) or serosal (61.33%) layers compared to ampullary pregnancies, often necessitating salpingectomy over salpingostomy to ensure complete removal [73]D.
Step 4: Management of Non-Tubal and Complex Ectopics
Non-tubal EPs require specialized surgical strategies due to the high risk of hemorrhage [65]C[77]C.
- Cesarean Scar Pregnancy (CSP): Management is stratified by type (I, II, or III) based on myometrial thickness [52]D. Type III CSP often requires pretreatment with Uterine Artery Embolization (UAE) or High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) prior to laparoscopic excision to minimize intraoperative blood loss [59]. Robot-assisted laparoscopic resection is also an option for those desiring future pregnancy [69]C.
- Interstitial and Angular Pregnancy: These may be managed via multi-port laparoscopy or cornual wedge resection [74]D. In cases of heterotopic interstitial pregnancy (HIP), timely surgery to remove the ectopic can preserve the coexisting intrauterine pregnancy [75]D.
- Abdominal and Retroperitoneal Pregnancy: These rare forms (approx. 1% of EPs) often require laparotomy for safe excision due to proximity to major vessels like the psoas muscle or uterosacral ligaments [76]C[77]C.
Step 5: Postoperative Monitoring and Resolution
Following surgery, especially salpingostomy or management of CSP, monitoring is essential to ensure complete resolution of trophoblastic tissue [57].
- β-hCG Tracking: Serum β-hCG should be monitored until it returns to normal levels [57][76]C.
- Persistent Trophoblast: If β-hCG levels plateau or rise, medical rescue with Methotrexate 50 mg/m² IM may be required [60].
- Transition to Care: Patients can typically be discharged once hemodynamically stable with adequate pain control, with follow-up scheduled to discuss future reproductive planning [56].
| Intervention | Primary Indication | Route/Dose | Key Advantage | Evidence Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopy | Stable Tubal EP | Minimally invasive | Higher spontaneous pregnancy rate [64] | 2a |
| vNOTES | Stable Tubal EP | Transvaginal endoscopy | Shorter operative time [72]D | 2b |
| Laparotomy | Ruptured EP/Instability | Open surgery | Rapid access for hemorrhage control [17] | 2b |
| Methotrexate | Stable, β-hCG < 5000 | 50 mg/m² IM | Non-invasive [60] | 2b |
| UAE/HIFU | Type III CSP | Interventional/US | Reduces intraoperative bleeding [59] | 2b |
Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes
- ▸Laparoscopic surgery for tubal pregnancy is associated with higher tubal patency (OR 2.47) and spontaneous pregnancy rates (OR 2.10) compared to methotrexate.
- ▸History of cured tuberculosis or Chlamydia infection significantly increases the risk of recurrent ectopic pregnancy due to permanent tubal scarring.
- ▸Interstitial pregnancy treated with wedge resection carries a 9.1% recurrence risk and a 4.5% risk of future uterine rupture.
The prognosis for future fertility following an (EP) is generally favorable, though it is influenced by the choice of initial , underlying tubal health, and lifestyle factors. While EP remains a leading cause of maternal morbidity in the first trimester, modern diagnostic and therapeutic strategies have shifted the focus toward preserving reproductive potential [56][60].
Comparative Fertility: Medical vs. Surgical Management
The choice between medical management with (MTX) and surgical intervention (salpingectomy or salpingostomy) significantly impacts long-term tubal patency and spontaneous conception rates.
- Laparoscopic Surgery vs. Methotrexate: Meta-analysis indicates that laparoscopic surgery is associated with a significantly higher tubal patency rate (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.72-3.53) and a higher spontaneous pregnancy rate (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.28-3.46) compared to a single of MTX (50 mg/m²) [64]. This is likely due to the immediate mechanical clearance of the trophoblastic tissue, whereas MTX relies on gradual resorption which may leave residual tubal damage or occlusion [64].
- Salpingostomy vs. Salpingectomy: Preserving the fallopian tube via salpingostomy or opting for expectant management in stable patients results in significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates compared to radical salpingectomy [92]. However, the benefit of salpingostomy must be weighed against a slightly increased risk of persistent trophoblast or recurrent EP in the same tube [56][92].
Recurrence Risk and Interpregnancy Interval
Recurrence is a primary concern for patients, with rates varying by the site of the index pregnancy and surgical technique.
- Tubal Recurrence: The risk of a repeat tubal EP is influenced by the interpregnancy interval (IPI). While some clinicians advise waiting for several cycles, retrospective data suggest that the IPI does not significantly alter the odds of recurrence following expectant or surgical management of a spontaneous conception [83].
- Interstitial and Scar Pregnancies: Patients with a history of interstitial pregnancy treated via wedge resection face a significantly higher recurrence rate (9.1% vs 1.3% in controls) and a 4.5% risk of uterine rupture in subsequent pregnancies [90]. Similarly, (CSP) carries a high risk of recurrence, particularly if the initial implantation was an "exogenous" pattern (growing toward the serosa) or exhibited rich vascularity on color Doppler (OR 2.80) [91].
Impact of Infections and Lifestyle
Underlying tubal pathology often dictates the long-term prognosis.
- Infectious Sequelae: infection is a major driver of tubal factor infertility and EP. The mechanism involves a pro-inflammatory response to CT-induced delayed hypersensitivity (often marked by cHSP60 antibodies), which damages the endosalpinx [79]. Additionally, a history of cured tuberculosis (TB) is a potent risk factor, with TB-cured patients exhibiting an increased risk of EP (aOR 2.641) even when ovarian reserve is good [81].
- Smoking: Active smoking at the time of conception is associated with significantly higher rates of pregnancy loss and EP [32]. Smoking impairs ciliary function within the fallopian tubes, delaying embryo transport and increasing the likelihood of ectopic implantation [32].
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Considerations
For patients requiring (IVF) due to tubal damage, specific factors influence the risk of a subsequent EP.
- Biomarkers: High serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels (>12 ng/mL) in fresh embryo transfer cycles are associated with an increased risk of EP, possibly due to the supraphysiological hormonal environment affecting tubal motility [86].
- Transfer Techniques: In patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF), the use of hyaluronic acid-enriched transfer medium has been shown to improve live birth rates [85]. Furthermore, endometrial compaction (a decrease in thickness) between the day of hCG administration and embryo transfer is associated with a reduced EP rate in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles [89]. Conversely, technical challenges such as embryo retention during transfer do not appear to significantly increase EP risk, provided the embryo is promptly retransferred [78].
Protocol for Post-Ectopic Fertility Optimization
Following the resolution of an ectopic pregnancy, the following steps are recommended to optimize future outcomes:
- Serial Beta-hCG Monitoring: Ensure levels return to <5 mIU/mL to confirm complete resolution and rule out persistent trophoblastic disease or misdiagnosed (GTN) [82].
- Modifiable Risk Factor Counseling: Immediate smoking cessation and screening/treatment for to prevent further tubal scarring [32][79].
- Early Pregnancy Mapping: In any subsequent pregnancy, an ultrasound must be performed at 5-6 weeks gestation to confirm intrauterine location, especially in patients with prior CSP or interstitial wedge resection [90][91].
- Surgical Planning for CSP: For patients with prior CSP, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) or uterine artery embolization (UAE) prior to curettage may be used, though subsequent pregnancy outcomes are comparable between these two pretreatment modalities [87].
| Factor | Good Prognosis | Poor Prognosis |
|---|---|---|
| Management Type | Salpingostomy or Expectant [92] | Salpingectomy (if contralateral tube is damaged) [56] |
| Infection History | No history of PID/STIs | Prior Chlamydia [79] or Tuberculosis [81] |
| Lifestyle | Non-smoker | Active smoker [32] |
| EP Location | Distal tubal | Interstitial (wedge resection) [90] or Cesarean Scar [91] |
| IVF Parameters | Endometrial compaction [89] | High AMH (>12 ng/mL) in fresh cycles [86] |
Guidelines and Resources
- ▸The discriminatory hCG zone should not be used in isolation to diagnose ectopic pregnancy in stable patients to avoid harming viable intrauterine pregnancies.
- ▸Cesarean scar pregnancy is now formally classified as a type of ectopic pregnancy according to the 2025 SRU Lexicon.
- ▸RhD prophylaxis is strongly recommended for all Rh-negative patients diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy regardless of management type.
Clinical guidelines for the of ectopic pregnancy (EP) emphasize a balance between the rapid identification of life-threatening conditions and the prevention of iatrogenic injury to potentially viable intrauterine pregnancies (IUP) [93][100]. Modern management has shifted toward standardized nomenclature and conservative diagnostic thresholds, particularly in hemodynamically stable patients [97][107].
Diagnostic Standards and the Discriminatory Zone
Historically, the "discriminatory zone"—the serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level at which a gestational sac should be visible via —was strictly used to diagnose EP. However, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) now advocate for a more cautious approach [100][107]. Because a single hCG measurement cannot reliably distinguish between an early IUP, a failed IUP, and an EP, clinicians are advised to prioritize clinical stability over strict numerical cutoffs [104].
In stable patients where ultrasound is indeterminate (Pregnancy of Unknown Location, or PUL), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against using the discriminatory zone as a sole criterion for intervention [104]. Instead, serial hCG monitoring and follow-up imaging are required to prevent the accidental termination of a desired pregnancy [106]. The SRU 2025 Lexicon has further refined definitions, explicitly categorizing (CSP) as a form of ectopic pregnancy due to its abnormal implantation site and high risk of morbidity [97].
Medical and Surgical Management Guidelines
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) provide the primary frameworks for treatment selection [93][95]. (MTX) is the preferred medical treatment for stable patients with no evidence of rupture [93].
Protocol: Selection of Management Strategy
- Step 1: Hemodynamic Assessment. If the patient is unstable (hypotension, tachycardia, or peritoneal signs), immediate surgical intervention via or laparotomy is mandatory [93][102].
- Step 2: Eligibility for Medical Management. For stable patients, assess MTX candidacy. Key criteria include an hCG level ideally <5,000 mIU/mL, absence of fetal cardiac activity, and a mass size <4 cm [93][95].
- Step 3: Regimen Selection. Choose between single-dose (50 mg/m² IM), two-dose, or multi-dose protocols based on initial hCG levels and clinical risk factors [95].
- Step 4: Follow-up. Monitor hCG levels on days 4 and 7 post-treatment. A decrease of <15% between these days requires a second dose of MTX or surgical intervention [93].
Special Populations and Emerging Recommendations
Recent guidelines from the Society of Family Planning (SFP) address the management of undesired PUL. In asymptomatic individuals seeking abortion, the risk of EP is estimated at 4% to 8% [103]. The SFP recommends that the absence of a visible gestational sac should not necessarily delay care if the patient prefers immediate treatment, provided they are counseled on the risks of EP [103].
Regarding RhD alloimmunization, the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF) 2025 update reinforces the necessity of administering RhD immunoglobulin to Rh-negative patients undergoing medical or surgical management for EP to prevent future pregnancy complications [105].
Comparative Guideline Summary
| Organization | Year | Key Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| ACOG | 2018 | MTX is an effective alternative to surgery in stable patients with low hCG [93]. |
| SRU | 2025 | Standardized lexicon: CSP is classified as an ectopic pregnancy [97]. |
| ACR | 2025 | US is the primary modality; MRI may be used as an adjunct for complex cases [107]. |
| SMFM | 2020 | CSP requires specialized care due to high risk of severe maternal morbidity [98]. |
| SFP | 2025 | Clinical judgment is paramount in PUL; 4-8% EP incidence in abortion-seekers [103]. |
| CNGOF | 2025 | Strong recommendation for RhD prophylaxis in first-trimester EP [105]. |
Clinical Prediction and Tools
- hCG Trend Analysis: A rise of less than 35% in 48 hours is highly suggestive of a non-viable pregnancy (either EP or failed IUP) [93].
- M4 Model: A validated tool for predicting the outcome of a PUL (IUP vs. EP vs. failing PUL), though clinical correlation remains essential [103].
Patient Resources
- ACOG Patient Education: Comprehensive guides on the symptoms of tubal pregnancy and the differences between MTX and surgery [93].
- SMFM Consults: Detailed information for patients diagnosed with rare ectopic types, such as cesarean scar pregnancies [98].
| Parameter | Favorable for Medical Management | Contraindications |
|---|---|---|
| Hemodynamic Status | Stable | Unstable/Ruptured |
| hCG Level | <5,000 mIU/mL (Ideal) | >10,000 mIU/mL (Relative) |
| Adnexal Mass Size | <4 cm | >4 cm |
| Fetal Cardiac Activity | Absent | Present (Relative) |
| Patient Compliance | Able to return for follow-up | Unable to follow up |
References
- [1]
Geremew AB, Roberts CT, Ullah S et al.. “Maternal near miss incidence ratio, its causes and risk factors in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Reproductive health (2025). PMID: 41469660 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [2]
He Y, Shi S, Su X et al.. “Incidence of pregnancy outcomes among patients with recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 41214571 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [3]
Stabile G, Vona L, Carlucci S et al.. “Uterine Ectopic Pregnancies and Live Births: Systematic Review of the Literature and Concepts Underlying Favorable Outcomes.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 41303752 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [4]
Feng D, Liu T, Xiao X et al.. “A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Surgical Outcomes Between vNOTES and Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Salpingectomy.” Journal of minimally invasive gynecology (2025). PMID: 41391516 ↗
L1bRCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [5]
Agostini A, Legendre G, Margueritte F et al.. “[Therapeutic management of tubal ectopic pregnancies: Clinical practice guidelines of CNGOF and SCGP].” Gynecologie, obstetrique, fertilite & senologie (2026). PMID: 41183782 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [6]
Gurney JM, Tuominen A, Saavalainen J et al.. “Endometriosis and early pregnancy outcomes: a registry-based cohort study in Finland.” American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (2026). PMID: 41581635 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [7]
Yang C, Chen Q, Shen X et al.. “A prospective cohort study on progestin-primed ovarian stimulation vs. GnRH antagonist in IVF-ICSI cycles: effects on clinical pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.” Journal of ovarian research (2025). PMID: 41310816 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [8]
Hurni Y, La Torre F, Saiz-Vivo R et al.. “Incidence of postoperative intrauterine adhesions and septal remnants following hysteroscopic septum resection: A retrospective study.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2025). PMID: 41239831 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [9]
Yuk JS, Yoon SH, Yang SW. “Risk of Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Women with a History of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.” Journal of clinical medicine (2025). PMID: 40944084 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [10]
Săndulescu MS, Veliscu Carp A, Vrabie SC et al.. “Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Diagnosis, Management and Prognosis.” Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) (2025). PMID: 41008745 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [11]
Biggs MA, Anne Armstrong M, Tucker LY et al.. “Incidence of Ectopic Pregnancy and Diagnostic Accuracy of Ectopic Pregnancy Screening Criteria Among People Seeking Versus Not Seeking Abortion: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.” Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health (2025). PMID: 41058421 ↗
L3bCASE_CONTROLCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [12]
Jørgensen JFK, Reza C, Florentz Sødergren SA et al.. “Complications following minimally invasive surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy - with a particular focus on interstitial pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study.” European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology (2026). PMID: 41313866 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [13]
Kulabukhova PV, Fokina TV, Babaeva MN et al.. “Diagnosis and Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy in a Cesarean Section Scar-Case Report.” Journal of clinical medicine (2026). PMID: 41899226 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [14]
Zhang C, Yang Y, Ta L. “Cervical pregnancy treated with methotrexate combined with traditional Chinese medicine: a case report and literature review.” Frontiers in medicine (2025). PMID: 41426565 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [15]
Zhao Q, Qin W, Pan H et al.. “Early ultrasound diagnosis and management of intramural pregnancy: a case series report utilizing the FIGO leiomyoma classification system and 3D sonographic mapping.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 41316090 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [16]
Maroni L, Silva PC, Kunst R et al.. “Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy using the bayes theorem and neural network: a validation of a retrospective cohort study.” Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia (2026). PMID: 41988238 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [17]
Chudal D, Shrestha A, Manandhar R et al.. “Clinical Profile of Ectopic Pregnancy in a Tertiary Care Center: A Five-Year Retrospective Study.” JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association (2026). PMID: 41783531 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [18]
Mutiso SK, Mugambi EM. “Prevalence and risk factors for laparoscopic managed ectopic pregnancies at a tertiary referral hospital - a 10-year synopsis: a cross sectional study.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2026). PMID: 41709146 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [19]
Li W, Shen WF, Gu YL et al.. “The epidemiology of ectopic pregnancy: global burden and projections.” International journal of surgery (London, England) (2026). PMID: 41563270 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [20]
Fu B, Zhang S, Xiang L et al.. “Prevalence and influencing factors of perinatal depression across different stages of pregnancy and postpartum: a cross-sectional study in China.” Frontiers in public health (2025). PMID: 41561847 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [21]
Hellwig K, Tilson HH, Thiel S et al.. “Summary of Research: Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in Multiple Sclerosis: Findings from the Global MAPLE-MS Pharmacovigilance Program.” Neurology and therapy (2026). PMID: 41518521 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [22]
Torres C, Kelly J, Gronowski AM. “From Diagnosis to Delivery: A Look at the Continuing Gap in Maternal Testing.” Clinical chemistry (2025). PMID: 41468130 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [23]
Nijjar S, De Braud LV, Rogozińska E et al.. “Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in Early Gestation: A Scoping Review of Definitions and Diagnostic Approach.” BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology (2026). PMID: 41449819 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [24]
Du X, Chen Q, Lu M et al.. “An individualized risk prediction tool for ectopic pregnancy within the first 10 weeks of gestation based on machine learning algorithms.” Frontiers in medicine (2025). PMID: 41446847 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [25]
Scime NV, Huang B, Brown HK et al.. “Incidence and Outcomes of Surgically Managed Ectopic Pregnancy in Women With Disabilities: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.” Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology (2025). PMID: 41305949 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [26]
Salame A, Lawrenz B, Kalafat E et al.. “Assessing the risk of ectopic pregnancy following euploid frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study.” Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics (2025). PMID: 40542319 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [27]
Jing M, Zhang R, Zhao W. “Interstitial pregnancy outcomes in correlation with history of ipsilateral tubal surgery: a retrospective study.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2025). PMID: 39966113 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [28]
Jiang X, Jiang S, Gao H et al.. “Impact of salpingectomy on the risk and characteristics of ectopic pregnancy after IVF/ICSI in patients with ectopic pregnancy history: A large retrospective cohort study.” Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica (2025). PMID: 39868798 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [29]
Zeng H, Chang Y, Liu N et al.. “Ectopic pregnancy is associated with increased risk of displaced implantation window: a retrospective study.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2024). PMID: 39707276 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [30]
Cai J, Liu L, Jiang X et al.. “Low body mass index is associated with ectopic pregnancy following assisted reproductive techniques: a retrospective study.” BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology (2021). PMID: 32575153 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [31]
Xie RH, Guo X, Li M et al.. “Risk factors and consequences of undiagnosed cesarean scar pregnancy: a cohort study in China.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2019). PMID: 31655570 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [32]
Hviid KVR, Bliddal S, El Issaoui M et al.. “Smoking and recurrent pregnancy loss: A cohort study of 2829 women.” Journal of reproductive immunology (2024). PMID: 38788348 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology, Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [33]
Zhou X, Li H, Fu X. “Identifying possible risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy based on a retrospective study of 291 cases.” The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (2020). PMID: 31943529 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [34]
Brim ACS, Barretto VRD, Reis-Oliveira JG et al.. “Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy occurrence: Systematic review and meta-analysis.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2025). PMID: 39602079 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [35]
Pujol Gualdo N, Mägi R, Laisk T. “Genome-wide association study meta-analysis supports association between MUC1 and ectopic pregnancy.” Human reproduction (Oxford, England) (2023). PMID: 37877466 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [36]
Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Liu X et al.. “Risk factors for massive hemorrhage during the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2021). PMID: 33219842 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [37]
Pi R, Liu Y, Zhao X et al.. “Tubal infertility and pelvic adhesion increase risk of heterotopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: A retrospective study.” Medicine (2020). PMID: 33181716 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [38]
Criscione M, Baldini GM, Sanna E et al.. “Tubal Stump Ectopic Pregnancy After IVF-ET in Patients Who Underwent Salpingectomy or Adnexectomy: A Qualitative Systematic Review.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 41597369 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [39]
Jenabi E, Ayubi E, Khazaei S et al.. “The environmental risk factors associated with ectopic pregnancy: An umbrella review.” Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction (2023). PMID: 36592890 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [40]
Yong PJ, Matwani S, Brace C et al.. “Endometriosis and Ectopic Pregnancy: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of minimally invasive gynecology (2020). PMID: 31546066 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [41]
Ji JS, Liu L, Huang H et al.. “The body mass index and the risk of ectopic pregnancy: a 5-year retrospective case-control study.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2024). PMID: 38368325 ↗
L3bCASE_CONTROLCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [42]
Xia Q, Wang T, Xian J et al.. “Relation of Chlamydia trachomatis infections to ectopic pregnancy: A meta-analysis and systematic review.” Medicine (2020). PMID: 31895782 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [43]
Timor-Tritsch IE, Horwitz G, D'Antonio F et al.. “Recurrent Cesarean scar pregnancy: case series and literature review.” Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2021). PMID: 33411387 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [44]
Huang CC, Huang CC, Lin SY et al.. “Association of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) with ectopic pregnancy and preterm labor in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study.” PloS one (2019). PMID: 31408465 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [45]
Li L, Li S, Zhou Y et al.. “Molecular insights into salpingitis-induced infertility and ectopic pregnancy: pathogenesis, biomarkers, and translational perspectives.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2026). PMID: 41814063 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [46]
Roland N, Kolla E, Poncet L et al.. “Intrauterine Devices and Risk of Ectopic Pregnancy.” NEJM evidence (2025). PMID: 41288424 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [47]
Aghayari A, Sorayaie Azar A, Taheri-Anganeh M et al.. “Prediction of ectopic pregnancy using interpretable machine learning algorithms.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 41120886 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [48]
Wang N, Qi F, Zhou J et al.. “Subsequent pregnancy outcomes of excisional surgery vs conservative surgery for cesarean scar pregnancy.” American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM (2025). PMID: 40962114 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [49]
Westborg S, Elfving K, Lindroth Y et al.. “Assessment of Chlamydia trachomatis testing in Sweden 2016-2023 and the incidence of associated complications.” Infectious diseases (London, England) (2025). PMID: 40588441 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [50]
Gluska H, Daykan Y, Raviv O et al.. “Unified management of cervical and cesarean scar pregnancies: A low-risk approach.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2025). PMID: 40357567 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [51]
Li J, Dai T, Liu Y et al.. “Establishing a predictive model for ectopic pregnancy risk following assisted reproductive technology.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 40155799 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [52]
Cheng XT, Liu YS, Song DY et al.. “Risk factors associated with the failure of local methotrexate combined with minimally invasive surgery for late cesarean scar pregnancy.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 39810082 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology, Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [53]
Zhao Y, Xu A, Liu D et al.. “An endometrium of type C along with an endometrial thickness of < 8 mm are risk factors for ectopic pregnancy after stimulated cycles with fresh embryo transfer.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2023). PMID: 37803277 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [54]
He D, Wang T, Ren W. “Global burden of pelvic inflammatory disease and ectopic pregnancy from 1990 to 2019.” BMC public health (2023). PMID: 37784046 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [55]
Lin R, DiCenzo N, Rosen T. “Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: nuances in diagnosis and treatment.” Fertility and sterility (2023). PMID: 37506758 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Risk Factors and Etiology - [56]
Rosen A, Palma L, Ordon M et al.. “Pregnancy outcomes following medical vs surgical treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a population-based retrospective cohort study.” American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (2025). PMID: 40645471 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions, Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [57]
Yin Y, Huang L, Xu N et al.. “Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of Four Different Surgical Modalities in the Treatment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.” Advances in therapy (2025). PMID: 39853658 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [58]
Xiao X, Liu T, Li X et al.. “Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for tubal ectopic pregnancy(vNOTESTEP): a protocol for a randomized controlled trial.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 40269766 ↗
L2bTRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [59]
Zhang Q, Yan D, Zhang A et al.. “Clinical comparison of high-intensity focused ultrasound versus uterine artery embolization with laparoscopic excision in type III cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy management: a retrospective cohort study.” International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group (2025). PMID: 41198145 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [60]
Scarpelli E, Capozzi VA, Roberto L et al.. “Predictors of Methotrexate Success and Fertility Outcomes in Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 40572746 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions, Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [61]
Zhang S, Zhou D, Yan JB et al.. “Analysis of feasibility, effectiveness and safety of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery(vNOTES) of ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective study.” BMC surgery (2025). PMID: 39881267 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [62]
Dura MC, Kaya C, Gürsoy B et al.. “Women's sexual quality of life after ectopic pregnancy surgery - vNOTES vs conventional laparoscopy - a retrospective cohort study.” Ginekologia polska (2025). PMID: 40485262 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [63]
Hartshorn K, Wylie S, Nicholson L et al.. “A Systematic Review of Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) versus Laparoscopic Salpingectomy in the Management of Ectopic Pregnancy.” The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (2026). PMID: 41844421 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [64]
Lin S, Lin R, Liu H. “The clinical efficacy and impact on fertility function of laparoscopic surgery versus methotrexate for treatment of tubal pregnancy: a meta-analysis.” Biomedical engineering online (2025). PMID: 41219963 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions, Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [65]
Yin L, Gong Z, Xiao X et al.. “Sequential intramural pregnancies in the right uterine cornu after the transfer of two embryos in a single cycle: a case report and literature review.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 41257658 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [66]
Xin J, Wang J, Zhang L et al.. “Anesthetic management of an adult female with uncorrected univentricular heart and comorbid ectopic pregnancy for unilateral salpingectomy: a case report.” BMC anesthesiology (2025). PMID: 41239204 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [67]
Shen J, Huang Y, Fang R et al.. “Diagnosis and management of multiple-site heterotopic pregnancy with acute appendicitis: Case report.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 40999386 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [68]
Yacouba MC, Diouaga HS, Oumara M et al.. “Advanced abdominal pregnancy complicated by uterine prolapse: a case report at the issaka gazoby maternity of niamey (niger).” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 40410703 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [69]
van Reesema L, Shadowen C, Woo JJ. “Eight steps to success: minimally invasive surgical management of cesarean scar pregnancy.” Fertility and sterility (2025). PMID: 40339782 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [70]
Liu S, Wang J, Wu Y et al.. “The effect of surgically-induced ampullary hydrosalpinx after salpingostomy for ectopic pregnancy on IVF/ICSI Outcomes.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 41250069 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [71]
Farren J, Al Wattar BH, Jurkovic D. “The diagnosis and management of extrauterine and uterine ectopic pregnancy.” Human reproduction update (2026). PMID: 41061761 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [72]
Vertongen AS, Stuart A, Stuhr Olsson K et al.. “Ectopic pregnancies: laparoscopic versus vNOTES approach. Surgical and obstetric outcomes.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2025). PMID: 40603716 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [73]
Yan L, Wang Y, Zhang H et al.. “Deeper Trophoblastic Invasion and More-Promotive Vascular Remodeling in Tubal Isthmic Pregnancy Compared with Ampullary Pregnancy: A Retrospective Clinicopathological Study.” Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) (2025). PMID: 40095353 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [74]
Feng D, Liu T, He L et al.. “Pregnancy outcomes following different surgical approaches for heterotopic interstitial and angular pregnancy.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2025). PMID: 40028871 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [75]
Zheng M, Peng Y, Cai P et al.. “Surgical treatment of fallopian tubal pregnancy and interstitial pregnancy has no differential effect on intrauterine pregnancy after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2024). PMID: 39558245 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [76]
Zhang Y, Fan Y, Wang H et al.. “Abdominal Pregnancy in the Right Uterosacral Ligament: A Novel Case Report.” The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (2026). PMID: 41725295 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [77]
Camacho A, Romei B, Delgadillo E et al.. “Retroperitoneal Ectopic Pregnancy: Technical Management.” Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A (2026). PMID: 41661110 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Maternal Management: Surgical Interventions - [78]
Maleki-Hajiagha A, Karimi R, Emami N et al.. “How embryo retention affects assisted reproductive technology outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2025). PMID: 40956336 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [79]
Zuo Y, Jiang TT, Teng Y et al.. “Associations of Chlamydia trachomatis serology with fertility-related and pregnancy adverse outcomes in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.” EBioMedicine (2023). PMID: 37413889 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [80]
Knapman BL, Forgues MA, Abbott JA et al.. “Other treatments for CSP.” Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology (2023). PMID: 37379723 ↗
L2aSR_OBSCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [81]
Ji G, Song M, Ma Y et al.. “Adverse clinical outcomes in patients with good ovarian reserve are linked to a history of cured tuberculosis: a retrospective cohort study.” Reproductive health (2026). PMID: 41761328 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [82]
Liu Y, Zhou Y, Zhou Z et al.. “GTN misdiagnosed as ectopic pregnancy: a 17-year retrospective cohort study.” Gynecologic oncology (2025). PMID: 40516205 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [83]
Dooley WM, Farren J, De Braud LV et al.. “Interpregnancy interval and risk of recurrence following tubal ectopic pregnancy: retrospective cohort study from UK tertiary center.” Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2025). PMID: 40472183 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [84]
Gao J, Yuan Y, Li J et al.. “Sequential embryo transfer versus double cleavage-stage embryo or double blastocyst transfer in patients with recurrent implantation failure with frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a cohort study.” Frontiers in endocrinology (2023). PMID: 37745696 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [85]
Yan Q, Zhao M, Hao F et al.. “Effect of hyaluronic acid-enriched transfer medium on frozen-thawed embryo transfer outcomes in RIF patients: a single-centre retrospective study.” Frontiers in endocrinology (2023). PMID: 37465128 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [86]
Hu KL, Li S, Hunt S et al.. “High anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is associated with increased risks of ectopic pregnancy in women undergoing fresh embryo transfer cycle, a cohort study.” Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E (2023). PMID: 36737777 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [87]
Wang X, Yang B, Chen W et al.. “Clinical efficacy and re-pregnancy outcomes of patients with previous cesarean scar pregnancy treated with either high-intensity focused ultrasound or uterine artery embolization before ultrasound-guided dilatation and curettage: a retrospective cohort study.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2023). PMID: 36726079 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [88]
Xu H, Lin G, Xue L et al.. “Ectopic pregnancy in China during 2011-2020: a single-centre retrospective study of 9499 cases.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2022). PMID: 36496359 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [89]
Li Q, Liu A, Shen H et al.. “Endometrial compaction after human chorionic gonadotrophin administration reduces ectopic pregnancy rate following fresh embryo transfer in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in patients with non-thin endometrium: a retrospective cohort study.” Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E (2022). PMID: 36271375 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [90]
Tang S, Du T, Huang J et al.. “Effect of previous wedge resection for interstitial pregnancy on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles of IVF/ICSI: a retrospective study.” Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E (2022). PMID: 35105356 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [91]
Shi J, Gong X, Wang H et al.. “Sonographic Predictors and Long-Term Reproductive Outcomes in Recurrent Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (2026). PMID: 41324207 ↗
L2bCOHORTCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [92]
Török P, Naem A, Csehely S et al.. “Reproductive outcomes after expectant and surgical management for tubal pregnancy: a retrospective study.” Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy (2023). PMID: 36815764 ↗
L2bTRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Fertility Considerations and Future Pregnancy Outcomes - [93]
. “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 193: Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy.” Obstetrics and gynecology (2018). PMID: 29470343 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [94]
. “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 191: Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy.” Obstetrics and gynecology (2018). PMID: 29232273 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [95]
. “Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: a committee opinion.” Fertility and sterility (2013). PMID: 23849842 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [96]
. “Evidence-based treatments for couples with unexplained infertility: a guideline.” Fertility and sterility (2020). PMID: 32106976 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [97]
Rodgers SK, Horrow MM, Doubilet PM et al.. “A Lexicon for First-Trimester US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Recommendations.” American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (2025). PMID: 39198135 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [98]
Miller R, Timor-Tritsch IE, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. “Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Consult Series #49: Cesarean scar pregnancy.” American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (2020). PMID: 31972162 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [99]
Morin L, Van den Hof MC. “SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Ultrasound evaluation of first trimester pregnancy complications. Number 161, June 2005.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2006). PMID: 16724399 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [100]
Rodgers SK, Chang C, DeBardeleben JT et al.. “Normal and Abnormal US Findings in Early First-Trimester Pregnancy: Review of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound 2012 Consensus Panel Recommendations.” Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc (2015). PMID: 26562242 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [101]
. “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 191 Summary: Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy.” Obstetrics and gynecology (2018). PMID: 29370045 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [102]
. “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 193 Summary: Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy.” Obstetrics and gynecology (2018). PMID: 29470339 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [103]
Nippita S, Cansino C, Goldberg AB et al.. “Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Management of undesired pregnancy of unknown location and abortion at less than 42 days of gestation.” Contraception (2025). PMID: 40122324 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [104]
Hahn SA, Lavonas EJ, Mace SE et al.. “Clinical policy: Critical issues in the initial evaluation and management of patients presenting to the emergency department in early pregnancy.” Annals of emergency medicine (2012). PMID: 22921048 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [105]
Maurice P, Vigoureux S, Garabedian C et al.. “Prevention of RhD alloimmunization in the first trimester of pregnancy: Clinical practice guidelines of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2025). PMID: 40251923 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [106]
Brown DL, Packard A, Maturen KE et al.. “ACR Appropriateness Criteria® First Trimester Vaginal Bleeding.” Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR (2018). PMID: 29724428 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [107]
Laifer-Narin SL, Fruauff A, Romero CC et al.. “ACR Appropriateness Criteria® First Trimester Vaginal Bleeding: 2025 Update.” Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR (2025). PMID: 41193042 ↗
L1cGUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources