Lucrare de licență
Lucrare de licență
Nina Coquerel
1 Partea generală
2 Partea specială
2.1 Introducere
2.1.1 Obiective
2.2 Material și metode
2.2.1 Analiza statistică a datelor
Pentru descrierea variabilelor cantitative am folosit histograme și am calculat mediile aritmetice ± deviația standard (DS) [cu intervalul de încredere (IC) 95%], precum și valorile extreme și mediane. Pentru variabilele calitative, am folosit pie-uri sau bar-chart-uri și am calculat frecvențele absolute și relative ale categoriilor formate.
Pentru a studia relațiile dintre variabilele cantitative și cele calitative, am folosit testele T și Mann-Whitney (MW) dacă acestea au fost binare, respectiv ANOVA dacă acestea au avut mai multe categorii. Am prezentat valorile p generate de aceste teste precum și mediile ± DS ale grupurilor și diferența mediilor cu IC95% asociat. Am prezentat grafic rezultatele suooob forma unor box-plot-uri. Pentru a studia relațiile dintre variabilele cantitative am folosit coeficientul de corelație Spearman (R), cu valoarea p asociata și am prezentat grafic relațiile sub forma unor scatter-plot-uri pe care am adăugat linia de regresie cu IC95%. Pentru a descrie relațiile dintre variabilele calitative am folosit testul Chi2 sau Fisher și indicatorii Cramer phi sau V și Odds-Ratio (OR) / Risc relativ (RR) cu IC95%. Am prezentat grafic rezultatele sub forma unor bar-chart-uri.
Am folosit Microsot Excel 2016 pentru managementul bazei de date. Pentru toate analizele statistice și graficele ulterioare am folosit R 3.6.0. Am considerat p < 0.05 ca fiind semnificativ statistic și p < 0.1 ca prezentând doar o tendință spre semnificativitate statistică.
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Age (years)
Vârsta pacienților (N=21) a avut valori între 23 și 39 ani (mediana: 30) cu o medie de 29.90 ±3.78 ani. Vârsta pacienților cu Living: rural (N=4, 19.0%) a avut valori între 29 și 39 ani (mediana: 32.5) cu o medie de 33.25 ±4.35 ani. Vârsta pacienților cu Living: urbain (N=17, 81.0%) a avut valori între 23 și 36 ani (mediana: 29) cu o medie de 29.12 ±3.3 ani. Această diferență de 4.13 ani a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.046) conform testului T pentru eșantioane cu varaiții egale.
Tabel 1: Age distribution by several parameters.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Âge (années) (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p=0.476) | |||
(total) | 21 (100.0%) | 29.90 ±3.8 | 30.0 (23.0:39.0) |
Grup: Milieu de vie (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.152) | |||
rural | 4 (19.0%) | 33.25 ±4.3 | 32.5 (29.0:39.0) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 29.12 ±3.3 | 29.0 (23.0:36.0) |
Grup: Parité (ANOVA: p=0.491) | |||
0 | 17 (81.0%) | 29.41 ±3.9 | 29.0 (23.0:39.0) |
1 | 3 (14.3%) | 32.00 ±3.6 | 31.0 (29.0:36.0) |
2 | 1 (4.8%) | 32.00 ±NA | 32.0 (32.0:32.0) |
Grup: Gestité (ANOVA: p=0.035) | |||
1 | 14 (66.7%) | 28.50 ±2.9 | 29.0 (23.0:33.0) |
2 | 5 (23.8%) | 33.80 ±4.0 | 34.0 (29.0:39.0) |
3 | 1 (4.8%) | 28.00 ±NA | 28.0 (28.0:28.0) |
5 | 1 (4.8%) | 32.00 ±NA | 32.0 (32.0:32.0) |
Grup: Côté de la GEU (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.590) | |||
gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 29.50 ±3.7 | 29.5 (23.0:39.0) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 30.44 ±4.0 | 32.0 (23.0:36.0) |
Grup: Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.239) | |||
oui | 4 (19.0%) | 32.25 ±3.9 | 33.0 (27.0:36.0) |
non | 17 (81.0%) | 29.35 ±3.7 | 29.0 (23.0:39.0) |
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3: Age distribution by several parameters.
Vârsta pacienților cu Gestity (G): 1 (N=14, 66.7%) a avut valori între 23 și 33 ani (mediana: 29) cu o medie de 28.50 ±2.93 ani. Vârsta pacienților cu Gestity (G): >1 (N=7, 33.3%) a avut valori între 28 și 39 ani (mediana: 32) cu o medie de 32.71 ±3.9 ani. Această diferență de 4.21 ani a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.012) conform testului T pentru eșantioane cu varaiții egale.Vârsta pacienților cu Parity (P): 0 (N=17, 81.0%) a avut valori între 23 și 39 ani (mediana: 29) cu o medie de 29.41 ±3.86 ani. Vârsta pacienților cu Parity (P): >0 (N=4, 19.0%) a avut valori între 29 și 36 ani (mediana: 31.5) cu o medie de 32.00 ±2.94 ani. Această diferență de 2.59 ani nu a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.227) conform testului T pentru eșantioane cu varaiții egale.2.3.1.1 Weeks of amenorrhoea
Weeks of amenorrhoea (N=21) a avut valori între 3 și 9 (mediana: 6) cu o medie de 5.81 ±1.33. Weeks of amenorrhoea la pacienții cu Living: rural (N=4, 19.0%) a avut valori între 3 și 6 (mediana: 4.5) cu o medie de 4.50 ±1.29. Weeks of amenorrhoea la pacienții cu Living: urbain (N=17, 81.0%) a avut valori între 4 și 9 (mediana: 6) cu o medie de 6.12 ±1.17. Această diferență de 1.62 a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.024) conform testului T pentru eșantioane cu varaiții egale.
(You may want to pair the following chart with the scatterplot with age~amenorrhoea. I am making both square for this scenario.)
Figure 4:
Distribution of weeks of amenorrhoea in the sample. (| mean, ¦ median).
2.3.1.2 Age (years) ~ Complications
Vârsta pacienților cu Presence of a complication: oui (N=7, 33.3%) a avut valori între 27 și 39 ani (mediana: 32) cu o medie de 32.29 ±4.31 ani. Vârsta pacienților cu Presence of a complication: non (N=14, 66.7%) a avut valori între 23 și 33 ani (mediana: 29.5) cu o medie de 28.71 ±2.97 ani. Această diferență de 3.57 ani a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.038) conform testului T pentru eșantioane cu varaiții egale.
Tabel 2: Age distribution by complications.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Âge (années) (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p=0.476) | |||
(total) | 21 (100.0%) | 29.90 ±3.8 | 30.0 (23.0:39.0) |
Grup: Présence d’une complication (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.080) | |||
oui | 7 (33.3%) | 32.29 ±4.3 | 32.0 (27.0:39.0) |
non | 14 (66.7%) | 28.71 ±3.0 | 29.5 (23.0:33.0) |
Grup: Hémopéritoine (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.277) | |||
oui | 5 (23.8%) | 31.60 ±3.6 | 32.0 (27.0:36.0) |
non | 16 (76.2%) | 29.38 ±3.8 | 29.5 (23.0:39.0) |
Grup: Phénomène douloureux (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.530) | |||
oui | 2 (9.5%) | 34.00 ±7.1 | 34.0 (29.0:39.0) |
non | 19 (90.5%) | 29.47 ±3.3 | 30.0 (23.0:36.0) |
Figure 5: Age distribution by complications.
Figure 6: Distribuția complicatiilor si tratamentelor.
2.3.1.3 Age (years) ~ Intervention
Tabel 3: Age distribution by intervention data.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Âge (années) (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p=0.476) | |||
(total) | 21 (100.0%) | 29.90 ±3.8 | 30.0 (23.0:39.0) |
Grup: Abstention thérapeutique (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.470) | |||
oui | 2 (9.5%) | 28.00 ±2.8 | 28.0 (26.0:30.0) |
non | 19 (90.5%) | 30.11 ±3.9 | 30.0 (23.0:39.0) |
Grup: Traitement médical (Methotrexate) (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.495) | |||
oui | 3 (14.3%) | 28.00 ±4.6 | 29.0 (23.0:32.0) |
non | 18 (85.7%) | 30.22 ±3.7 | 30.0 (23.0:39.0) |
Grup: Salpingectomie laparoscopique (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.228) | |||
oui | 16 (80.0%) | 30.50 ±3.8 | 30.0 (23.0:39.0) |
non | 4 (20.0%) | 27.50 ±3.9 | 27.5 (23.0:32.0) |
Grup: Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) (ANOVA: p=0.603) | |||
0 | 2 (9.5%) | 28.00 ±2.8 | 28.0 (26.0:30.0) |
1 | 7 (33.3%) | 29.29 ±2.0 | 29.0 (27.0:33.0) |
2 | 4 (19.0%) | 32.00 ±3.6 | 31.5 (29.0:36.0) |
3 | 6 (28.6%) | 30.67 ±5.2 | 30.5 (23.0:39.0) |
4 | 2 (9.5%) | 27.50 ±6.4 | 27.5 (23.0:32.0) |
Figure 7: Age distribution by intervention data.
Figure 6: Distribuția complicatiilor si tratamentelor.
2.3.1.4 Age (years) ~ Données échographiques
(I put them in Main because only “Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach” has data.)
2.3.2 Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)
Figure 8:
Distribution of Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission (| mean, ¦ median) and at J1 and J3 (box-plot).
2.3.3 Age (years), Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL), Weeks of amenorrhoea
None of the correlations below are statistically significant.
Figure 9:
Heatmap of the correlations between Age (years), Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL), Weeks of amenorrhoea, Length of post-interventional stay (days). Spearman R coefficients. Since none of the pairs yielded statistically signficant correaltions, all values are crossed.
### Âge (années)
#### vs. Semaines d’aménorrhée
R = -0.272 (p=0.233).
#### vs. Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission
R = -0.299 (p=0.280).
#### vs. Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours)
R = 0.178 (p=0.439).
### Semaines d’aménorrhée
#### vs. Âge (années)
R = -0.272 (p=0.233).
#### vs. Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission
R = -0.241 (p=0.386).
#### vs. Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours)
R = -0.061 (p=0.791).
### Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission
#### vs. Âge (années)
R = -0.299 (p=0.280).
#### vs. Semaines d’aménorrhée
R = -0.241 (p=0.386).
#### vs. Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours)
R = -0.242 (p=0.384).
### Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours)
#### vs. Âge (années)
R = 0.178 (p=0.439).
#### vs. Semaines d’aménorrhée
R = -0.061 (p=0.791).
#### vs. Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission
R = -0.242 (p=0.384).
2.3.4 Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) ~ *
Admission rate (N=15) a avut valori între 153 și 10962 (mediana: 1505) cu o medie de 2192.49 ±2791.1.
(I can’t work with the other rates, not enough data.)
Tabel 1: Age distribution by several parameters.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p<0.001) | |||
(total) | 15 (100.0%) | 2 192.49 ±2 791.1 | 1 505.0 (153.0:10 962.0) |
Grup: Milieu de vie (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.295) | |||
rural | 3 (20.0%) | 779.33 ±700.0 | 650.0 (153.0:1 535.0) |
urbain | 12 (80.0%) | 2 545.78 ±3 024.1 | 1 599.0 (224.2:10 962.0) |
Grup: Parité (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.305) | |||
0 | 13 (86.7%) | 2 462.31 ±2 913.7 | 1 535.0 (153.0:10 962.0) |
>0 | 2 (13.3%) | 438.65 ±298.9 | 438.6 (227.3:650.0) |
Grup: Gestité (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.280) | |||
1 | 11 (73.3%) | 2 532.46 ±3 068.0 | 1 535.0 (224.2:10 962.0) |
>1 | 4 (26.7%) | 1 257.58 ±1 841.3 | 438.6 (153.0:4 000.0) |
Grup: Côté de la GEU (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.388) | |||
gauche | 9 (60.0%) | 2 181.06 ±3 466.9 | 650.0 (224.2:10 962.0) |
droite | 6 (40.0%) | 2 209.63 ±1 606.8 | 1 696.5 (153.0:4 289.8) |
Grup: Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.133) | |||
oui | 1 (6.7%) | 153.00 ±NA | 153.0 (153.0:153.0) |
non | 14 (93.3%) | 2 338.17 ±2 836.7 | 1 520.0 (224.2:10 962.0) |
Figure 10: Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission distribution by several parameters.
2.3.4.1 Admission rate ~ Complication
Admission rate la pacienții cu Presence of a complication: oui (N=3, 20.0%) a avut valori între 153 și 1535 (mediana: 267) cu o medie de 651.67 ±767.1. Admission rate la pacienții cu Presence of a complication: non (N=12, 80.0%) a avut valori între 224.2 și 10962 (mediana: 1599) cu o medie de 2577.70 ±2999.8. Această diferență de 1926.0 nu a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.180) conform testului Mann-Whitney.
Tabel 4: Distribution of Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission by complications.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p<0.001) | |||
(total) | 15 (100.0%) | 2 192.49 ±2 791.1 | 1 505.0 (153.0:10 962.0) |
Grup: Présence d’une complication (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.180) | |||
oui | 3 (20.0%) | 651.67 ±767.1 | 267.0 (153.0:1 535.0) |
non | 12 (80.0%) | 2 577.70 ±2 999.8 | 1 599.0 (224.2:10 962.0) |
Grup: Hémopéritoine (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.076) | |||
oui | 2 (13.3%) | 210.00 ±80.6 | 210.0 (153.0:267.0) |
non | 13 (86.7%) | 2 497.49 ±2 886.6 | 1 535.0 (224.2:10 962.0) |
Grup: Phénomène douloureux (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.933) | |||
oui | 1 (6.7%) | 1 535.00 ±NA | 1 535.0 (1 535.0:1 535.0) |
non | 14 (93.3%) | 2 239.45 ±2 890.3 | 1 463.5 (153.0:10 962.0) |
Figure 11: Distribution of Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission by complications.
2.3.4.2 Admission rate ~ Intervention
Tabel 5: Distribution of Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission by intervention data.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p<0.001) | |||
(total) | 15 (100.0%) | 2 192.49 ±2 791.1 | 1 505.0 (153.0:10 962.0) |
Grup: Abstention thérapeutique (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.381) | |||
oui | 2 (13.3%) | 864.60 ±905.7 | 864.6 (224.2:1 505.0) |
non | 13 (86.7%) | 2 396.78 ±2 946.4 | 1 535.0 (153.0:10 962.0) |
Grup: Traitement médical (Methotrexate) (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.734) | |||
oui | 3 (20.0%) | 1 552.33 ±139.8 | 1 535.0 (1 422.0:1 700.0) |
non | 12 (80.0%) | 2 352.53 ±3 126.0 | 1 077.5 (153.0:10 962.0) |
Grup: Salpingectomie laparoscopique (Wilcoxon rank sum test: p=0.945) | |||
oui | 10 (71.4%) | 2 650.11 ±3 355.9 | 1 171.5 (153.0:10 962.0) |
non | 4 (28.6%) | 1 540.50 ±116.6 | 1 520.0 (1 422.0:1 700.0) |
Grup: Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test: p=0.054) | |||
0 | 2 (13.3%) | 864.60 ±905.7 | 864.6 (224.2:1 505.0) |
1 | 5 (33.3%) | 4 883.77 ±3 565.8 | 4 000.0 (1 535.0:10 962.0) |
2 | 3 (20.0%) | 704.33 ±858.1 | 267.0 (153.0:1 693.0) |
3 | 3 (20.0%) | 501.43 ±237.7 | 627.0 (227.3:650.0) |
4 | 2 (13.3%) | 1 561.00 ±196.6 | 1 561.0 (1 422.0:1 700.0) |
Figure 12: Distribution of Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission by intervention data.
2.3.5 Length of stay
Length of post-interventional stay (days) (N=21) a avut valori între 0 și 4 (mediana: 2) cu o medie de 1.95 ±1.2. Length of post-interventional stay (days) la pacienții cu Living: rural (N=4, 19.0%) a avut valori între 1 și 3 (mediana: 2.5) cu o medie de 2.25 ±0.957. Length of post-interventional stay (days) la pacienții cu Living: urbain (N=17, 81.0%) a avut valori între 0 și 4 (mediana: 2) cu o medie de 1.88 ±1.27. Această diferență de 0.368 nu a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.578) conform testului Mann-Whitney.
Tabel 6: Length of post-interventional stay distribution by several parameters.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p=0.051) | |||
(total) | 21 (100.0%) | 1.95 ±1.2 | 2.0 (0.0:4.0) |
Grup: Milieu de vie (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.543) | |||
rural | 4 (19.0%) | 2.25 ±1.0 | 2.5 (1.0:3.0) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 1.88 ±1.3 | 2.0 (0.0:4.0) |
Grup: Parité (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.026) | |||
0 | 17 (81.0%) | 1.76 ±1.3 | 1.0 (0.0:4.0) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 2.75 ±0.5 | 3.0 (2.0:3.0) |
Grup: Gestité (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.140) | |||
1 | 14 (66.7%) | 1.71 ±1.3 | 1.0 (0.0:4.0) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 2.43 ±0.8 | 3.0 (1.0:3.0) |
Grup: Côté de la GEU (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.387) | |||
gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 1.75 ±1.2 | 1.5 (0.0:3.0) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 2.22 ±1.2 | 2.0 (1.0:4.0) |
Grup: Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.912) | |||
oui | 4 (19.0%) | 2.00 ±0.8 | 2.0 (1.0:3.0) |
non | 17 (81.0%) | 1.94 ±1.3 | 2.0 (0.0:4.0) |
Figure 13: Length of post-interventional stay distribution by several parameters.
Length of post-interventional stay (days) la pacienții cu Gestity (G): 1 (N=14, 66.7%) a avut valori între 0 și 4 (mediana: 1) cu o medie de 1.71 ±1.33. Length of post-interventional stay (days) la pacienții cu Gestity (G): >1 (N=7, 33.3%) a avut valori între 1 și 3 (mediana: 3) cu o medie de 2.43 ±0.787. Această diferență de 0.714 nu a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.177) conform testului Mann-Whitney.Length of post-interventional stay (days) la pacienții cu Parity (P): 0 (N=17, 81.0%) a avut valori între 0 și 4 (mediana: 1) cu o medie de 1.76 ±1.25. Length of post-interventional stay (days) la pacienții cu Parity (P): >0 (N=4, 19.0%) a avut valori între 2 și 3 (mediana: 3) cu o medie de 2.75 ±0.5. Această diferență de 0.985 nu a fost semnificativă statistic (p=0.126) conform testului Mann-Whitney.2.3.5.1 Length of post-interventional stay (days) ~ Complication
Tabel 7: Length of post-interventional stay distribution by complications.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p=0.051) | |||
(total) | 21 (100.0%) | 1.95 ±1.2 | 2.0 (0.0:4.0) |
Grup: Présence d’une complication (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.884) | |||
oui | 7 (33.3%) | 2.00 ±0.8 | 2.0 (1.0:3.0) |
non | 14 (66.7%) | 1.93 ±1.4 | 1.5 (0.0:4.0) |
Grup: Hémopéritoine (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.894) | |||
oui | 5 (23.8%) | 2.00 ±0.7 | 2.0 (1.0:3.0) |
non | 16 (76.2%) | 1.94 ±1.3 | 1.5 (0.0:4.0) |
Grup: Phénomène douloureux (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.967) | |||
oui | 2 (9.5%) | 2.00 ±1.4 | 2.0 (1.0:3.0) |
non | 19 (90.5%) | 1.95 ±1.2 | 2.0 (0.0:4.0) |
Figure 14: Length of post-interventional stay distribution by complications.
2.3.5.2 Length of post-interventional stay (days) ~ Intervention
Tabel 8: Length of post-interventional stay distribution by intervention data.
Subset | N | Media ±SD | Med (Min:Max) |
Grup: Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) (Shapiro-Wilk normality test: p=0.051) | |||
(total) | 21 (100.0%) | 1.95 ±1.2 | 2.0 (0.0:4.0) |
Grup: Abstention thérapeutique (Welch Two Sample t-test: p<0.001) | |||
oui | 2 (9.5%) | 0.00 ±0.0 | 0.0 (0.0:0.0) |
non | 19 (90.5%) | 2.16 ±1.1 | 2.0 (1.0:4.0) |
Grup: Traitement médical (Methotrexate) (Welch Two Sample t-test: p=0.346) | |||
oui | 3 (14.3%) | 3.00 ±1.7 | 4.0 (1.0:4.0) |
non | 18 (85.7%) | 1.78 ±1.1 | 2.0 (0.0:3.0) |
Grup: Salpingectomie laparoscopique (Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction: p=0.806) | |||
oui | 16 (80.0%) | 2.00 ±0.9 | 2.0 (1.0:3.0) |
non | 4 (20.0%) | 2.25 ±2.1 | 2.5 (0.0:4.0) |
Figure 15: Length of post-interventional stay distribution by intervention data.
2.4 Extra
2.4.1 Milieu de vie
Tabel 9: Summary table of all variables by Milieu de vie.
Factor | Levels | Total | rural | urbain | Statistics |
Milieu de vie | 21 | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 32.5 (29:39) | 29 (23:36) | T-test: p=0.046 |
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 14 (82.4%) | OR=0.64 [0.05, 8.52], RR=0.91 [0.60, 1.39] (p=1.000) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 1 (25.0%) | 13 (76.5%) | OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.33 [0.09, 1.19] (p=0.088) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (75.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 4.5 (3:6) | 6 (4:9) | T-test: p=0.024 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 3 (75.0%) | 9 (52.9%) | OR=2.67 [0.23, 31.07], RR=1.42 [0.81, 2.48] (p=0.603) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (47.1%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (75.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | OR=9.75 [0.78, 121.84], RR=3.19 [1.33, 7.64] (p=0.088) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | OR=1.08 [0.09, 13.54], RR=1.06 [0.24, 4.73] (p=1.000) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (50.0%) | 0 | OR=35.00 [1.27, 961.31], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.029) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 650 (153:1535) | 1599 (224.2:10962) | MW: p=0.295 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 723.5 (141:1306) | 2497.36 (194.72:4800) | MW: p=0.667 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1400 (1400:1400) | 853.7 (180:16392) | MW: p=1.000 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | OR=1.56 [0.12, 20.61], RR=1.42 [0.29, 6.83] (p=1.000) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (11.8%) | OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 1 (25.0%) | 2 (11.8%) | OR=2.50 [0.17, 37.26], RR=2.12 [0.39, 11.70] (p=0.489) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 13 (81.2%) | OR=0.69 [0.05, 9.21], RR=0.92 [0.60, 1.41] (p=1.000) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 2.5 (1:3) | 2 (0:4) | MW: p=0.578 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 10: Relation between Milieu de vie and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Living | 0 | >0 | (total) |
rural | 3 (75.0% / 17.6%) | 1 (25.0% / 25.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 14 (82.4% / 82.4%) | 3 (17.6% / 75.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.64 [0.05, 8.52], RR=0.91 [0.60, 1.39], phi=0.07 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 16: Relation between Milieu de vie and Parité.
Tabel 11: Relation between Milieu de vie and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Living | 1 | >1 | (total) |
rural | 1 (25.0% / 7.1%) | 3 (75.0% / 42.9%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 13 (76.5% / 92.9%) | 4 (23.5% / 57.1%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.33 [0.09, 1.19], phi=0.43 (p=0.088) | |||
Figure 17: Relation between Milieu de vie and Gestité.
Tabel 12: Relation between Milieu de vie and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Living | gauche | droite | (total) |
rural | 3 (75.0% / 25.0%) | 1 (25.0% / 11.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 9 (52.9% / 75.0%) | 8 (47.1% / 88.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.67 [0.23, 31.07], RR=1.42 [0.81, 2.48], phi=0.18 (p=0.603) | |||
Figure 18: Relation between Milieu de vie and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 13: Relation between Milieu de vie and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 3 (75.0% / 42.9%) | 1 (25.0% / 7.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 4 (23.5% / 57.1%) | 13 (76.5% / 92.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=9.75 [0.78, 121.84], RR=3.19 [1.33, 7.64], phi=0.43 (p=0.088) | |||
Figure 19: Relation between Milieu de vie and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 14: Relation between Milieu de vie and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 1 (25.0% / 20.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 18.8%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 4 (23.5% / 80.0%) | 13 (76.5% / 81.2%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.08 [0.09, 13.54], RR=1.06 [0.24, 4.73], phi=0.01 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 20: Relation between Milieu de vie and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 15: Relation between Milieu de vie and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 2 (50.0% / 100.0%) | 2 (50.0% / 10.5%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 17 (100.0% / 89.5%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=35.00 [1.27, 961.31], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.67 (p=0.029) | |||
Figure 21: Relation between Milieu de vie and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 16: Relation between Milieu de vie and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 1 (25.0% / 25.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 17.6%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 3 (17.6% / 75.0%) | 14 (82.4% / 82.4%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.56 [0.12, 20.61], RR=1.42 [0.29, 6.83], phi=0.07 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 22: Relation between Milieu de vie and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 17: Relation between Milieu de vie and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 21.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 2 (11.8% / 100.0%) | 15 (88.2% / 78.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 23: Relation between Milieu de vie and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 18: Relation between Milieu de vie and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 1 (25.0% / 33.3%) | 3 (75.0% / 16.7%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 2 (11.8% / 66.7%) | 15 (88.2% / 83.3%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.50 [0.17, 37.26], RR=2.12 [0.39, 11.70], phi=0.15 (p=0.489) | |||
Figure 24: Relation between Milieu de vie and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 19: Relation between Milieu de vie and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Living | oui | non | (total) |
rural | 3 (75.0% / 18.8%) | 1 (25.0% / 25.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
urbain | 13 (81.2% / 81.2%) | 3 (18.8% / 75.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.05, 9.21], RR=0.92 [0.60, 1.41], phi=0.06 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 25: Relation between Milieu de vie and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.2 Parité
Tabel 20: Summary table of all variables by Parité.
Factor | Levels | Total | 0 | >0 | Statistics |
Parité | 21 | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 29 (23:39) | 31.5 (29:36) | T-test: p=0.227 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | 1 (25.0%) | OR=0.64 [0.05, 8.52], RR=0.71 [0.15, 3.40] (p=1.000) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 14 (82.4%) | 3 (75.0%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 14 (82.4%) | 0 | OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.006) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (17.6%) | 4 (100.0%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (4:9) | 6 (3:6) | T-test: p=0.362 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 10 (58.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | OR=1.43 [0.16, 12.70], RR=1.18 [0.50, 2.74] (p=1.000) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 7 (41.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 5 (29.4%) | 2 (50.0%) | OR=0.42 [0.05, 3.84], RR=0.59 [0.21, 1.64] (p=0.574) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 3 (17.6%) | 2 (50.0%) | OR=0.21 [0.02, 2.19], RR=0.35 [0.11, 1.18] (p=0.228) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (11.8%) | 0 | OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=1.000) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 1535 (153:10962) | 438.65 (227.3:650) | MW: p=0.305 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 1306 (141:4800) | 194.72 (194.72:194.72) | MW: p=1.000 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | ||
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 2 (11.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | OR=0.13 [0.01, 1.55], RR=0.24 [0.06, 0.93] (p=0.148) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (11.8%) | 0 | OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=1.000) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 3 (17.6%) | 0 | OR=2.17 [0.09, 50.51], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=1.000) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 12 (75.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | OR=0.31 [0.01, 6.95], RR=0.75 (p=0.538) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 1 (0:4) | 3 (2:3) | MW: p=0.126 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 21: Relation between Parité and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Parity (P) | rural | urbain | (total) |
0 | 3 (17.6% / 75.0%) | 14 (82.4% / 82.4%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 1 (25.0% / 25.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 17.6%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.64 [0.05, 8.52], RR=0.71 [0.15, 3.40], phi=0.07 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 26: Relation between Parité and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 22: Relation between Parité and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Parity (P) | 1 | >1 | (total) |
0 | 14 (82.4% / 100.0%) | 3 (17.6% / 42.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 57.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.69 (p=0.006) | |||
Figure 27: Relation between Parité and Gestité.
Tabel 23: Relation between Parité and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Parity (P) | gauche | droite | (total) |
0 | 10 (58.8% / 83.3%) | 7 (41.2% / 77.8%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 2 (50.0% / 16.7%) | 2 (50.0% / 22.2%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.43 [0.16, 12.70], RR=1.18 [0.50, 2.74], phi=0.07 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 28: Relation between Parité and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 24: Relation between Parité and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 5 (29.4% / 71.4%) | 12 (70.6% / 85.7%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 2 (50.0% / 28.6%) | 2 (50.0% / 14.3%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.42 [0.05, 3.84], RR=0.59 [0.21, 1.64], phi=0.17 (p=0.574) | |||
Figure 29: Relation between Parité and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 25: Relation between Parité and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 3 (17.6% / 60.0%) | 14 (82.4% / 87.5%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 2 (50.0% / 40.0%) | 2 (50.0% / 12.5%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.21 [0.02, 2.19], RR=0.35 [0.11, 1.18], phi=0.30 (p=0.228) | |||
Figure 30: Relation between Parité and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 26: Relation between Parité and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 2 (11.8% / 100.0%) | 15 (88.2% / 78.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 21.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 31: Relation between Parité and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 27: Relation between Parité and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 2 (11.8% / 50.0%) | 15 (88.2% / 88.2%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 2 (50.0% / 50.0%) | 2 (50.0% / 11.8%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.13 [0.01, 1.55], RR=0.24 [0.06, 0.93], phi=0.38 (p=0.148) | |||
Figure 32: Relation between Parité and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 28: Relation between Parité and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 2 (11.8% / 100.0%) | 15 (88.2% / 78.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 21.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 33: Relation between Parité and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 29: Relation between Parité and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 3 (17.6% / 100.0%) | 14 (82.4% / 77.8%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 22.2%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.17 [0.09, 50.51], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.20 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 34: Relation between Parité and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 30: Relation between Parité and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Parity (P) | oui | non | (total) |
0 | 12 (75.0% / 75.0%) | 4 (25.0% / 100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
>0 | 4 (100.0% / 25.0%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.31 [0.01, 6.95], RR=0.75, phi=0.25 (p=0.538) | |||
Figure 35: Relation between Parité and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.3 Gestité
Tabel 31: Summary table of all variables by Gestité.
Factor | Levels | Total | 1 | >1 | Statistics |
Gestité | 21 | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 29 (23:33) | 32 (28:39) | T-test: p=0.012 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (7.1%) | 3 (42.9%) | OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.17 [0.03, 0.90] (p=0.088) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 13 (92.9%) | 4 (57.1%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | 3 (42.9%) | OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=2.33 [1.12, 4.86] (p=0.006) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (57.1%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (4:9) | 6 (3:7) | T-test: p=0.366 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (64.3%) | 3 (42.9%) | OR=2.40 [0.38, 15.32], RR=1.50 [0.66, 3.42] (p=0.397) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 5 (35.7%) | 4 (57.1%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (21.4%) | 4 (57.1%) | OR=0.20 [0.03, 1.46], RR=0.38 [0.13, 1.08] (p=0.156) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 2 (14.3%) | 3 (42.9%) | OR=0.22 [0.03, 1.85], RR=0.33 [0.09, 1.28] (p=0.280) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (7.1%) | 1 (14.3%) | OR=0.46 [0.02, 8.69], RR=0.50 [0.06, 3.98] (p=1.000) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 1535 (224.2:10962) | 438.65 (153:4000) | MW: p=0.280 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 1306 (1306:1306) | 194.72 (141:4800) | MW: p=1.000 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | ||
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (7.1%) | 3 (42.9%) | OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.17 [0.03, 0.90] (p=0.088) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (14.3%) | 0 | OR=3.00 [0.13, 71.31], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.533) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 3 (21.4%) | 0 | OR=4.57 [0.21, 101.61], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.521) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 7 (100.0%) | OR=0.14 [0.01, 3.05], RR=0.69 [0.53, 0.91] (p=0.249) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 1 (0:4) | 3 (1:3) | MW: p=0.177 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 32: Relation between Gestité and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Gestity (G) | rural | urbain | (total) |
1 | 1 (7.1% / 25.0%) | 13 (92.9% / 76.5%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 3 (42.9% / 75.0%) | 4 (57.1% / 23.5%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.17 [0.03, 0.90], phi=0.43 (p=0.088) | |||
Figure 36: Relation between Gestité and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 33: Relation between Gestité and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Gestity (G) | 0 | >0 | (total) |
1 | 14 (100.0% / 82.4%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 3 (42.9% / 17.6%) | 4 (57.1% / 100.0%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=2.33 [1.12, 4.86], phi=0.69 (p=0.006) | |||
Figure 37: Relation between Gestité and Parité.
Tabel 34: Relation between Gestité and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Gestity (G) | gauche | droite | (total) |
1 | 9 (64.3% / 75.0%) | 5 (35.7% / 55.6%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 3 (42.9% / 25.0%) | 4 (57.1% / 44.4%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.40 [0.38, 15.32], RR=1.50 [0.66, 3.42], phi=0.20 (p=0.397) | |||
Figure 38: Relation between Gestité and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 35: Relation between Gestité and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 3 (21.4% / 42.9%) | 11 (78.6% / 78.6%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 4 (57.1% / 57.1%) | 3 (42.9% / 21.4%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.20 [0.03, 1.46], RR=0.38 [0.13, 1.08], phi=0.36 (p=0.156) | |||
Figure 39: Relation between Gestité and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 36: Relation between Gestité and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 2 (14.3% / 40.0%) | 12 (85.7% / 75.0%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 3 (42.9% / 60.0%) | 4 (57.1% / 25.0%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.22 [0.03, 1.85], RR=0.33 [0.09, 1.28], phi=0.32 (p=0.280) | |||
Figure 40: Relation between Gestité and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 37: Relation between Gestité and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 1 (7.1% / 50.0%) | 13 (92.9% / 68.4%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 1 (14.3% / 50.0%) | 6 (85.7% / 31.6%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.46 [0.02, 8.69], RR=0.50 [0.06, 3.98], phi=0.11 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 41: Relation between Gestité and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 38: Relation between Gestité and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 1 (7.1% / 25.0%) | 13 (92.9% / 76.5%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 3 (42.9% / 75.0%) | 4 (57.1% / 23.5%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.17 [0.03, 0.90], phi=0.43 (p=0.088) | |||
Figure 42: Relation between Gestité and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 39: Relation between Gestité and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 2 (14.3% / 100.0%) | 12 (85.7% / 63.2%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 7 (100.0% / 36.8%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=3.00 [0.13, 71.31], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.23 (p=0.533) | |||
Figure 43: Relation between Gestité and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 40: Relation between Gestité and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 3 (21.4% / 100.0%) | 11 (78.6% / 61.1%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 7 (100.0% / 38.9%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.57 [0.21, 101.61], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.29 (p=0.521) | |||
Figure 44: Relation between Gestité and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 41: Relation between Gestité and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Gestity (G) | oui | non | (total) |
1 | 9 (69.2% / 56.2%) | 4 (30.8% / 100.0%) | 14 (66.7%) |
>1 | 7 (100.0% / 43.8%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 7 (33.3%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.14 [0.01, 3.05], RR=0.69 [0.53, 0.91], phi=0.37 (p=0.249) | |||
Figure 45: Relation between Gestité and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.4 Côté de la GEU
Tabel 42: Summary table of all variables by Côté de la GEU.
Factor | Levels | Total | gauche | droite | Statistics |
Côté de la GEU | 21 | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 29.5 (23:39) | 32 (23:36) | T-test: p=0.584 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 3 (25.0%) | 1 (11.1%) | OR=2.67 [0.23, 31.07], RR=2.25 [0.41, 12.39] (p=0.603) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 9 (75.0%) | 8 (88.9%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 10 (83.3%) | 7 (77.8%) | OR=1.43 [0.16, 12.70], RR=1.07 [0.75, 1.54] (p=1.000) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 2 (16.7%) | 2 (22.2%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 9 (75.0%) | 5 (55.6%) | OR=2.40 [0.38, 15.32], RR=1.35 [0.74, 2.45] (p=0.397) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (25.0%) | 4 (44.4%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 5.5 (3:7) | 6 (5:9) | T-test: p=0.120 |
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (25.0%) | 4 (44.4%) | OR=0.42 [0.07, 2.66], RR=0.56 [0.19, 1.69] (p=0.397) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 1 (8.3%) | 4 (44.4%) | OR=0.11 [0.01, 1.29], RR=0.19 [0.04, 0.96] (p=0.119) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (16.7%) | 0 | OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.486) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 650 (224.2:10962) | 1696.5 (153:4289.77) | MW: p=0.388 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 750.36 (194.72:1306) | 2470.5 (141:4800) | MW: p=1.000 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1400 (180:16392) | 550 (550:550) | MW: p=0.667 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 12 (100.0%) | 9 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 12 (100.0%) | 9 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (44.4%) | OR=0.05 [0.00, 1.07], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.021) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (16.7%) | 0 | OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.486) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 2 (22.2%) | OR=0.32 [0.02, 4.20], RR=0.38 [0.06, 2.34] (p=0.553) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 9 (81.8%) | 7 (77.8%) | OR=1.29 [0.14, 11.54], RR=1.05 [0.72, 1.53] (p=1.000) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 12 (100.0%) | 9 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 1.5 (0:3) | 2 (1:4) | MW: p=0.440 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 43: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | rural | urbain | (total) |
gauche | 3 (25.0% / 75.0%) | 9 (75.0% / 52.9%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 1 (11.1% / 25.0%) | 8 (88.9% / 47.1%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.67 [0.23, 31.07], RR=2.25 [0.41, 12.39], phi=0.18 (p=0.603) | |||
Figure 46: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 44: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | 0 | >0 | (total) |
gauche | 10 (83.3% / 58.8%) | 2 (16.7% / 50.0%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 7 (77.8% / 41.2%) | 2 (22.2% / 50.0%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.43 [0.16, 12.70], RR=1.07 [0.75, 1.54], phi=0.07 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 47: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Parité.
Tabel 45: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | 1 | >1 | (total) |
gauche | 9 (75.0% / 64.3%) | 3 (25.0% / 42.9%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 5 (55.6% / 35.7%) | 4 (44.4% / 57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.40 [0.38, 15.32], RR=1.35 [0.74, 2.45], phi=0.20 (p=0.397) | |||
Figure 48: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Gestité.
Tabel 46: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 3 (25.0% / 42.9%) | 9 (75.0% / 64.3%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 4 (44.4% / 57.1%) | 5 (55.6% / 35.7%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.42 [0.07, 2.66], RR=0.56 [0.19, 1.69], phi=0.20 (p=0.397) | |||
Figure 49: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 47: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 1 (8.3% / 20.0%) | 11 (91.7% / 68.8%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 4 (44.4% / 80.0%) | 5 (55.6% / 31.2%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.11 [0.01, 1.29], RR=0.19 [0.04, 0.96], phi=0.42 (p=0.119) | |||
Figure 50: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 48: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 2 (16.7% / 100.0%) | 10 (83.3% / 52.6%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 9 (100.0% / 47.4%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.28 (p=0.486) | |||
Figure 51: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 49: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 12 (100.0% / 70.6%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 4 (44.4% / 100.0%) | 5 (55.6% / 29.4%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.05 [0.00, 1.07], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.56 (p=0.021) | |||
Figure 52: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 50: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 2 (16.7% / 100.0%) | 10 (83.3% / 52.6%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 9 (100.0% / 47.4%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.28 (p=0.486) | |||
Figure 53: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 51: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 1 (8.3% / 33.3%) | 11 (91.7% / 61.1%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 2 (22.2% / 66.7%) | 7 (77.8% / 38.9%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.32 [0.02, 4.20], RR=0.38 [0.06, 2.34], phi=0.20 (p=0.553) | |||
Figure 54: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 52: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Side of the ectopic pregnancy | oui | non | (total) |
gauche | 9 (81.8% / 56.2%) | 2 (18.2% / 50.0%) | 12 (57.1%) |
droite | 7 (77.8% / 43.8%) | 2 (22.2% / 50.0%) | 9 (42.9%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.29 [0.14, 11.54], RR=1.05 [0.72, 1.53], phi=0.05 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 55: Relation between Côté de la GEU and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.5 Présence d’une complication
Tabel 53: Summary table of all variables by Présence d’une complication.
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Présence d’une complication | 21 | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 32 (27:39) | 29.5 (23:33) | T-test: p=0.038 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 3 (42.9%) | 1 (7.1%) | OR=9.75 [0.78, 121.84], RR=6.00 [1.11, 32.32] (p=0.088) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (57.1%) | 13 (92.9%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 5 (71.4%) | 12 (85.7%) | OR=0.42 [0.05, 3.84], RR=0.83 [0.54, 1.28] (p=0.574) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 2 (28.6%) | 2 (14.3%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 3 (42.9%) | 11 (78.6%) | OR=0.20 [0.03, 1.46], RR=0.55 [0.25, 1.19] (p=0.156) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 4 (57.1%) | 3 (21.4%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (4:9) | 6 (3:7) | T-test: p=0.654 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 3 (42.9%) | 9 (64.3%) | OR=0.42 [0.07, 2.66], RR=0.67 [0.29, 1.52] (p=0.397) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 4 (57.1%) | 5 (35.7%) | ||
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 5 (71.4%) | 0 | OR=63.80 [2.62, 1 551.25], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.001) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0 | OR=13.18 [0.54, 320.51], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.100) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 267 (153:1535) | 1599 (224.2:10962) | MW: p=0.180 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 723.5 (141:1306) | 2497.36 (194.72:4800) | MW: p=0.667 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1400 (1400:1400) | 853.7 (180:16392) | MW: p=1.000 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 4 (57.1%) | 0 | OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.006) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (14.3%) | OR=0.33 [0.01, 7.92], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.533) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 1 (14.3%) | 2 (14.3%) | OR=1.00 [0.07, 13.37], RR=1.00 [0.16, 6.11] (p=1.000) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 6 (85.7%) | 10 (76.9%) | OR=1.80 [0.15, 21.48], RR=1.11 [0.80, 1.56] (p=1.000) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | 14 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 2 (1:3) | 1.5 (0:4) | MW: p=0.877 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 54: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Presence of a complication | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 3 (42.9% / 75.0%) | 4 (57.1% / 23.5%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 1 (7.1% / 25.0%) | 13 (92.9% / 76.5%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=9.75 [0.78, 121.84], RR=6.00 [1.11, 32.32], phi=0.43 (p=0.088) | |||
Figure 56: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 55: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Presence of a complication | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 5 (71.4% / 29.4%) | 2 (28.6% / 50.0%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 12 (85.7% / 70.6%) | 2 (14.3% / 50.0%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.42 [0.05, 3.84], RR=0.83 [0.54, 1.28], phi=0.17 (p=0.574) | |||
Figure 57: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Parité.
Tabel 56: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Presence of a complication | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 3 (42.9% / 21.4%) | 4 (57.1% / 57.1%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 11 (78.6% / 78.6%) | 3 (21.4% / 42.9%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.20 [0.03, 1.46], RR=0.55 [0.25, 1.19], phi=0.36 (p=0.156) | |||
Figure 58: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Gestité.
Tabel 57: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Presence of a complication | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 3 (42.9% / 25.0%) | 4 (57.1% / 44.4%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 9 (64.3% / 75.0%) | 5 (35.7% / 55.6%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.42 [0.07, 2.66], RR=0.67 [0.29, 1.52], phi=0.20 (p=0.397) | |||
Figure 59: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 58: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Presence of a complication | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 5 (71.4% / 100.0%) | 2 (28.6% / 12.5%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 14 (100.0% / 87.5%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=63.80 [2.62, 1 551.25], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.79 (p=0.001) | |||
Figure 60: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 59: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Presence of a complication | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 2 (28.6% / 100.0%) | 5 (71.4% / 26.3%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 14 (100.0% / 73.7%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=13.18 [0.54, 320.51], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.46 (p=0.100) | |||
Figure 61: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 60: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Presence of a complication | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 4 (57.1% / 100.0%) | 3 (42.9% / 17.6%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 14 (100.0% / 82.4%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.69 (p=0.006) | |||
Figure 62: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 61: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Presence of a complication | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 7 (100.0% / 36.8%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 2 (14.3% / 100.0%) | 12 (85.7% / 63.2%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.33 [0.01, 7.92], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.23 (p=0.533) | |||
Figure 63: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 62: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Presence of a complication | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 1 (14.3% / 33.3%) | 6 (85.7% / 33.3%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 2 (14.3% / 66.7%) | 12 (85.7% / 66.7%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.00 [0.07, 13.37], RR=1.00 [0.16, 6.11], phi=<0.01 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 64: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 63: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Presence of a complication | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 6 (85.7% / 37.5%) | 1 (14.3% / 25.0%) | 7 (33.3%) |
non | 10 (76.9% / 62.5%) | 3 (23.1% / 75.0%) | 14 (66.7%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.80 [0.15, 21.48], RR=1.11 [0.80, 1.56], phi=0.10 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 65: Relation between Présence d’une complication and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.6 Hémopéritoine
Tabel 64: Summary table of all variables by Hémopéritoine.
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Hémopéritoine | 21 | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 32 (27:36) | 29.5 (23:39) | T-test: p=0.261 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (18.8%) | OR=1.08 [0.09, 13.54], RR=1.07 [0.21, 5.43] (p=1.000) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | 13 (81.2%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 3 (60.0%) | 14 (87.5%) | OR=0.21 [0.02, 2.19], RR=0.69 [0.38, 1.24] (p=0.228) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | 2 (12.5%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 2 (40.0%) | 12 (75.0%) | OR=0.22 [0.03, 1.85], RR=0.53 [0.21, 1.33] (p=0.280) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (60.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (6:9) | 5.5 (3:7) | T-test: p=0.130 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 1 (20.0%) | 11 (68.8%) | OR=0.11 [0.01, 1.29], RR=0.29 [0.07, 1.15] (p=0.119) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 4 (80.0%) | 5 (31.2%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 5 (100.0%) | 2 (12.5%) | OR=63.80 [2.62, 1 551.25], RR=8.00 [2.64, 24.22] (p=0.001) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 210 (153:267) | 1535 (224.2:10962) | MW: p=0.076 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 141 (141:141) | 1306 (194.72:4800) | MW: p=0.500 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | ||
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 5 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 5 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | 0 | OR=99.00 [3.42, 2 867.46], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p<0.001) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (12.5%) | OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 0 | 3 (18.8%) | OR=0.35 [0.02, 7.98], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.549) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 5 (100.0%) | 11 (73.3%) | OR=4.30 [0.20, 94.92], RR=1.36 [1.25, 1.49] (p=0.530) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 5 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 2 (1:3) | 1.5 (0:4) | MW: p=0.898 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 65: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Haemoperitoneum | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 1 (20.0% / 25.0%) | 4 (80.0% / 23.5%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 3 (18.8% / 75.0%) | 13 (81.2% / 76.5%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.08 [0.09, 13.54], RR=1.07 [0.21, 5.43], phi=0.01 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 66: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 66: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Haemoperitoneum | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 3 (60.0% / 17.6%) | 2 (40.0% / 50.0%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 14 (87.5% / 82.4%) | 2 (12.5% / 50.0%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.21 [0.02, 2.19], RR=0.69 [0.38, 1.24], phi=0.30 (p=0.228) | |||
Figure 67: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Parité.
Tabel 67: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Haemoperitoneum | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 2 (40.0% / 14.3%) | 3 (60.0% / 42.9%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 12 (75.0% / 85.7%) | 4 (25.0% / 57.1%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.22 [0.03, 1.85], RR=0.53 [0.21, 1.33], phi=0.32 (p=0.280) | |||
Figure 68: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Gestité.
Tabel 68: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Haemoperitoneum | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 1 (20.0% / 8.3%) | 4 (80.0% / 44.4%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 11 (68.8% / 91.7%) | 5 (31.2% / 55.6%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.11 [0.01, 1.29], RR=0.29 [0.07, 1.15], phi=0.42 (p=0.119) | |||
Figure 69: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 69: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Haemoperitoneum | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 5 (100.0% / 71.4%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 2 (12.5% / 28.6%) | 14 (87.5% / 100.0%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=63.80 [2.62, 1 551.25], RR=8.00 [2.64, 24.22], phi=0.79 (p=0.001) | |||
Figure 70: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 70: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Haemoperitoneum | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 5 (100.0% / 26.3%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 2 (12.5% / 100.0%) | 14 (87.5% / 73.7%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.18 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 71: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 71: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Haemoperitoneum | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 4 (80.0% / 100.0%) | 1 (20.0% / 5.9%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 16 (100.0% / 94.1%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=99.00 [3.42, 2 867.46], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.87 (p<0.001) | |||
Figure 72: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 72: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Haemoperitoneum | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 5 (100.0% / 26.3%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 2 (12.5% / 100.0%) | 14 (87.5% / 73.7%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.18 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 73: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 73: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Haemoperitoneum | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 5 (100.0% / 27.8%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 3 (18.8% / 100.0%) | 13 (81.2% / 72.2%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.35 [0.02, 7.98], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.23 (p=0.549) | |||
Figure 74: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 74: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Haemoperitoneum | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 5 (100.0% / 31.2%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 5 (23.8%) |
non | 11 (73.3% / 68.8%) | 4 (26.7% / 100.0%) | 16 (76.2%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.30 [0.20, 94.92], RR=1.36 [1.25, 1.49], phi=0.29 (p=0.530) | |||
Figure 75: Relation between Hémopéritoine and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.7 Phénomène douloureux
Tabel 75: Summary table of all variables by Phénomène douloureux.
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Phénomène douloureux | 21 | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 34 (29:39) | 30 (23:36) | T-test: p=0.109 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 2 (10.5%) | OR=35.00 [1.27, 961.31], RR=9.50 [3.58, 25.18] (p=0.029) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 0 | 17 (89.5%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 15 (78.9%) | OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=1.27 (p=1.000) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (21.1%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 1 (50.0%) | 13 (68.4%) | OR=0.46 [0.02, 8.69], RR=0.73 [0.31, 1.71] (p=1.000) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 1 (50.0%) | 6 (31.6%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 4.5 (4:5) | 6 (3:9) | T-test: p=0.147 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 2 (100.0%) | 10 (52.6%) | OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=1.90 (p=0.486) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 0 | 9 (47.4%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 2 (100.0%) | 5 (26.3%) | OR=13.18 [0.54, 320.51], RR=3.80 [2.72, 5.31] (p=0.100) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 0 | 5 (26.3%) | OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 1535 (1535:1535) | 1463.5 (153:10962) | MW: p=0.933 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 1306 (1306:1306) | 194.72 (141:4800) | MW: p=1.000 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1400 (1400:1400) | 853.7 (180:16392) | MW: p=1.000 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (21.1%) | OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (10.5%) | OR=1.40 [0.05, 38.45], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 1 (50.0%) | 2 (10.5%) | OR=8.50 [0.37, 195.45], RR=4.75 [1.17, 19.36] (p=0.271) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 15 (83.3%) | OR=0.20 [0.01, 4.17], RR=0.60 [0.26, 1.36] (p=0.368) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 2 (1:3) | 2 (0:4) | MW: p=1.000 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 76: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Painful phenomenon | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 50.0%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 2 (10.5% / 50.0%) | 17 (89.5% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=35.00 [1.27, 961.31], RR=9.50 [3.58, 25.18], phi=0.67 (p=0.029) | |||
Figure 76: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 77: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Painful phenomenon | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 11.8%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 15 (78.9% / 88.2%) | 4 (21.1% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=1.27, phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 77: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Parité.
Tabel 78: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Painful phenomenon | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 1 (50.0% / 7.1%) | 1 (50.0% / 14.3%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 13 (68.4% / 92.9%) | 6 (31.6% / 85.7%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.46 [0.02, 8.69], RR=0.73 [0.31, 1.71], phi=0.11 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 78: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Gestité.
Tabel 79: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Painful phenomenon | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 16.7%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 10 (52.6% / 83.3%) | 9 (47.4% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=1.90, phi=0.28 (p=0.486) | |||
Figure 79: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 80: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Painful phenomenon | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 28.6%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 5 (26.3% / 71.4%) | 14 (73.7% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=13.18 [0.54, 320.51], RR=3.80 [2.72, 5.31], phi=0.46 (p=0.100) | |||
Figure 80: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 81: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Painful phenomenon | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 12.5%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 5 (26.3% / 100.0%) | 14 (73.7% / 87.5%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.18 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 81: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 82: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Painful phenomenon | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 11.8%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 4 (21.1% / 100.0%) | 15 (78.9% / 88.2%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 82: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 83: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Painful phenomenon | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 10.5%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 2 (10.5% / 100.0%) | 17 (89.5% / 89.5%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.40 [0.05, 38.45], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.11 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 83: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 84: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Painful phenomenon | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 1 (50.0% / 33.3%) | 1 (50.0% / 5.6%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 2 (10.5% / 66.7%) | 17 (89.5% / 94.4%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=8.50 [0.37, 195.45], RR=4.75 [1.17, 19.36], phi=0.33 (p=0.271) | |||
Figure 84: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 85: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Painful phenomenon | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 1 (50.0% / 6.2%) | 1 (50.0% / 25.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 15 (83.3% / 93.8%) | 3 (16.7% / 75.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.20 [0.01, 4.17], RR=0.60 [0.26, 1.36], phi=0.25 (p=0.368) | |||
Figure 85: Relation between Phénomène douloureux and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.8 Endomètre décidualisé
2.4.9 Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien
2.4.10 Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas
Tabel 86: Summary table of all variables by Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 21 | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 33 (27:36) | 29 (23:39) | T-test: p=0.174 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | OR=1.56 [0.12, 20.61], RR=1.42 [0.29, 6.83] (p=1.000) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | 14 (82.4%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 2 (50.0%) | 15 (88.2%) | OR=0.13 [0.01, 1.55], RR=0.57 [0.26, 1.23] (p=0.148) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 2 (50.0%) | 2 (11.8%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 1 (25.0%) | 13 (76.5%) | OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.33 [0.09, 1.19] (p=0.088) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 3 (75.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (6:9) | 6 (3:7) | T-test: p=0.117 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 0 | 12 (70.6%) | OR=0.05 [0.00, 1.07], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.021) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 4 (100.0%) | 5 (29.4%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 4 (100.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=5.67 [2.36, 13.59] (p=0.006) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 4 (100.0%) | 1 (5.9%) | OR=99.00 [3.42, 2 867.46], RR=17.00 [3.82, 75.64] (p<0.001) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (11.8%) | OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 153 (153:153) | 1520 (224.2:10962) | MW: p=0.133 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 141 (141:141) | 1306 (194.72:4800) | MW: p=0.500 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | ||
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (11.8%) | OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 0 | 3 (17.6%) | OR=0.46 [0.02, 10.70], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 12 (75.0%) | OR=3.24 [0.14, 72.94], RR=1.33 (p=0.538) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 2 (1:3) | 2 (0:4) | MW: p=0.926 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 87: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 1 (25.0% / 25.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 17.6%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 3 (17.6% / 75.0%) | 14 (82.4% / 82.4%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.56 [0.12, 20.61], RR=1.42 [0.29, 6.83], phi=0.07 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 86: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 88: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 2 (50.0% / 11.8%) | 2 (50.0% / 50.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 15 (88.2% / 88.2%) | 2 (11.8% / 50.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.13 [0.01, 1.55], RR=0.57 [0.26, 1.23], phi=0.38 (p=0.148) | |||
Figure 87: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Parité.
Tabel 89: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 1 (25.0% / 7.1%) | 3 (75.0% / 42.9%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 13 (76.5% / 92.9%) | 4 (23.5% / 57.1%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.10 [0.01, 1.28], RR=0.33 [0.09, 1.19], phi=0.43 (p=0.088) | |||
Figure 88: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Gestité.
Tabel 90: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 44.4%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 12 (70.6% / 100.0%) | 5 (29.4% / 55.6%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.05 [0.00, 1.07], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.56 (p=0.021) | |||
Figure 89: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 91: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 4 (100.0% / 57.1%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 3 (17.6% / 42.9%) | 14 (82.4% / 100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=37.29 [1.60, 866.87], RR=5.67 [2.36, 13.59], phi=0.69 (p=0.006) | |||
Figure 90: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 92: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 4 (100.0% / 80.0%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 1 (5.9% / 20.0%) | 16 (94.1% / 100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=99.00 [3.42, 2 867.46], RR=17.00 [3.82, 75.64], phi=0.87 (p<0.001) | |||
Figure 91: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 93: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 21.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 2 (11.8% / 100.0%) | 15 (88.2% / 78.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 92: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 94: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 21.1%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 2 (11.8% / 100.0%) | 15 (88.2% / 78.9%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 93: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 95: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 22.2%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 3 (17.6% / 100.0%) | 14 (82.4% / 77.8%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.46 [0.02, 10.70], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.20 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 94: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 96: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 4 (100.0% / 25.0%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (19.0%) |
non | 12 (75.0% / 75.0%) | 4 (25.0% / 100.0%) | 17 (81.0%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=3.24 [0.14, 72.94], RR=1.33, phi=0.25 (p=0.538) | |||
Figure 95: Relation between Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.11 Abstention thérapeutique
Tabel 97: Summary table of all variables by Abstention thérapeutique.
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Abstention thérapeutique | 21 | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 28 (26:30) | 30 (23:39) | T-test: p=0.468 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (21.1%) | OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 15 (78.9%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 15 (78.9%) | OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=1.27 (p=1.000) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (21.1%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 2 (100.0%) | 12 (63.2%) | OR=3.00 [0.13, 71.31], RR=1.58 (p=0.533) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 0 | 7 (36.8%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6.5 (6:7) | 6 (3:9) | T-test: p=0.453 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 2 (100.0%) | 10 (52.6%) | OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=1.90 (p=0.486) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 0 | 9 (47.4%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 0 | 7 (36.8%) | OR=0.33 [0.01, 7.92], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.533) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 0 | 5 (26.3%) | OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (10.5%) | OR=1.40 [0.05, 38.45], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 864.6 (224.2:1505) | 1535 (153:10962) | MW: p=0.381 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 750.36 (141:4800) | ||
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 516.85 (180:853.7) | 7591.5 (550:16392) | MW: p=0.267 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (21.1%) | OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (14.3%) | 0 | 3 (15.8%) | OR=0.94 [0.04, 24.27], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 0 | 16 (84.2%) | OR=0.07 [0.00, 2.12], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.200) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | 19 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 0 (0:0) | 2 (1:4) | MW: p=0.022 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 98: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 11.8%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 4 (21.1% / 100.0%) | 15 (78.9% / 88.2%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 96: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 99: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 11.8%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 15 (78.9% / 88.2%) | 4 (21.1% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.45 [0.06, 36.06], RR=1.27, phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 97: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Parité.
Tabel 100: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 14.3%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 12 (63.2% / 85.7%) | 7 (36.8% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=3.00 [0.13, 71.31], RR=1.58, phi=0.23 (p=0.533) | |||
Figure 98: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Gestité.
Tabel 101: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 2 (100.0% / 16.7%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 10 (52.6% / 83.3%) | 9 (47.4% / 100.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.52 [0.19, 106.70], RR=1.90, phi=0.28 (p=0.486) | |||
Figure 99: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 102: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 14.3%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 7 (36.8% / 100.0%) | 12 (63.2% / 85.7%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.33 [0.01, 7.92], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.23 (p=0.533) | |||
Figure 100: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 103: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 12.5%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 5 (26.3% / 100.0%) | 14 (73.7% / 87.5%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.53 [0.02, 12.82], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.18 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 101: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 104: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 10.5%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 2 (10.5% / 100.0%) | 17 (89.5% / 89.5%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.40 [0.05, 38.45], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.11 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 102: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 105: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 11.8%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 4 (21.1% / 100.0%) | 15 (78.9% / 88.2%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.03, 17.11], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.16 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 103: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 106: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 2 (100.0% / 11.1%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 3 (15.8% / 100.0%) | 16 (84.2% / 88.9%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.94 [0.04, 24.27], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.13 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 104: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Tabel 107: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
No treatment (expectant approach) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 1 (100.0% / 25.0%) | 2 (9.5%) |
non | 16 (84.2% / 100.0%) | 3 (15.8% / 75.0%) | 19 (90.5%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.07 [0.00, 2.12], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.46 (p=0.200) | |||
Figure 105: Relation between Abstention thérapeutique and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.12 Traitement médical (Methotrexate)
Tabel 108: Summary table of all variables by Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 21 | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 29 (23:32) | 30 (23:39) | T-test: p=0.359 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (19.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 3 (16.7%) | OR=2.50 [0.17, 37.26], RR=2.00 [0.46, 8.71] (p=0.489) |
urbain | 17 (81.0%) | 2 (66.7%) | 15 (83.3%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 17 (81.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | 14 (77.8%) | OR=2.17 [0.09, 50.51], RR=1.29 (p=1.000) |
>0 | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (22.2%) | ||
Gestité | 1 | 14 (66.7%) | 3 (100.0%) | 11 (61.1%) | OR=4.57 [0.21, 101.61], RR=1.64 (p=0.521) |
>1 | 7 (33.3%) | 0 | 7 (38.9%) | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 5 (5:7) | 6 (3:9) | T-test: p=0.846 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 12 (57.1%) | 1 (33.3%) | 11 (61.1%) | OR=0.32 [0.02, 4.20], RR=0.55 [0.17, 1.78] (p=0.553) |
droite | 9 (42.9%) | 2 (66.7%) | 7 (38.9%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (33.3%) | 1 (33.3%) | 6 (33.3%) | OR=1.00 [0.07, 13.37], RR=1.00 [0.28, 3.62] (p=1.000) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (23.8%) | 0 | 5 (27.8%) | OR=0.35 [0.02, 7.98], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.549) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | 1 (5.6%) | OR=8.50 [0.37, 195.45], RR=6.00 [0.89, 40.31] (p=0.271) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 1535 (1422:1700) | 1077.5 (153:10962) | MW: p=0.734 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 1306 (1306:1306) | 194.72 (141:4800) | MW: p=1.000 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 975 (550:1400) | 7318.35 (180:16392) | MW: p=0.800 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 21 (100.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | 18 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 21 (100.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | 18 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (19.0%) | 0 | 4 (22.2%) | OR=0.46 [0.02, 10.70], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 2 (9.5%) | 0 | 2 (11.1%) | OR=0.94 [0.04, 24.27], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=1.000) | |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 16 (80.0%) | 0 | 16 (94.1%) | OR=0.01 [0.00, 0.39], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.004) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 21 (100.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | 18 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 4 (1:4) | 2 (0:3) | MW: p=0.160 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 109: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 1 (33.3% / 25.0%) | 2 (66.7% / 11.8%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 3 (16.7% / 75.0%) | 15 (83.3% / 88.2%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.50 [0.17, 37.26], RR=2.00 [0.46, 8.71], phi=0.15 (p=0.489) | |||
Figure 106: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 110: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 3 (100.0% / 17.6%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 14 (77.8% / 82.4%) | 4 (22.2% / 100.0%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=2.17 [0.09, 50.51], RR=1.29, phi=0.20 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 107: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Parité.
Tabel 111: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 3 (100.0% / 21.4%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 11 (61.1% / 78.6%) | 7 (38.9% / 100.0%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=4.57 [0.21, 101.61], RR=1.64, phi=0.29 (p=0.521) | |||
Figure 108: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Gestité.
Tabel 112: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 1 (33.3% / 8.3%) | 2 (66.7% / 22.2%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 11 (61.1% / 91.7%) | 7 (38.9% / 77.8%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.32 [0.02, 4.20], RR=0.55 [0.17, 1.78], phi=0.20 (p=0.553) | |||
Figure 109: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 113: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 1 (33.3% / 14.3%) | 2 (66.7% / 14.3%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 6 (33.3% / 85.7%) | 12 (66.7% / 85.7%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=1.00 [0.07, 13.37], RR=1.00 [0.28, 3.62], phi=<0.01 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 110: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 114: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 3 (100.0% / 18.8%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 5 (27.8% / 100.0%) | 13 (72.2% / 81.2%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.35 [0.02, 7.98], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.23 (p=0.549) | |||
Figure 111: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 115: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 1 (33.3% / 50.0%) | 2 (66.7% / 10.5%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 1 (5.6% / 50.0%) | 17 (94.4% / 89.5%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=8.50 [0.37, 195.45], RR=6.00 [0.89, 40.31], phi=0.33 (p=0.271) | |||
Figure 112: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 116: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 3 (100.0% / 17.6%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 4 (22.2% / 100.0%) | 14 (77.8% / 82.4%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.46 [0.02, 10.70], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.20 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 113: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 117: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 3 (100.0% / 15.8%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 2 (11.1% / 100.0%) | 16 (88.9% / 84.2%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.94 [0.04, 24.27], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.13 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 114: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 118: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
vs. Laparoscopic salpingectomy | |||
Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 3 (100.0% / 75.0%) | 3 (14.3%) |
non | 16 (94.1% / 100.0%) | 1 (5.9% / 25.0%) | 18 (85.7%) |
(total) | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | 21 (100%) |
OR=0.01 [0.00, 0.39], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.84 (p=0.004) | |||
Figure 115: Relation between Traitement médical (Methotrexate) and Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
2.4.13 Salpingectomie laparoscopique
Tabel 119: Summary table of all variables by Salpingectomie laparoscopique.
Factor | Levels | Total | oui | non | Statistics |
Salpingectomie laparoscopique | 20 | 16 (80.0%) | 4 (20.0%) | ||
Âge (années) | *M(R) | 30 (23:39) | 30 (23:39) | 27.5 (23:32) | T-test: p=0.173 |
Milieu de vie | rural | 4 (20.0%) | 3 (18.8%) | 1 (25.0%) | OR=0.69 [0.05, 9.21], RR=0.75 [0.16, 3.60] (p=1.000) |
urbain | 16 (80.0%) | 13 (81.2%) | 3 (75.0%) | ||
Parité | 0 | 16 (80.0%) | 12 (75.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | OR=0.31 [0.01, 6.95], RR=0.75 (p=0.538) |
>0 | 4 (20.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | 0 | ||
Gestité | 1 | 13 (65.0%) | 9 (56.2%) | 4 (100.0%) | OR=0.14 [0.01, 3.05], RR=0.56 [0.44, 0.72] (p=0.249) |
>1 | 7 (35.0%) | 7 (43.8%) | 0 | ||
Semaines d’aménorrhée | *M(R) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (3:9) | 6 (5:7) | T-test: p=0.752 |
Côté de la GEU | gauche | 11 (55.0%) | 9 (56.2%) | 2 (50.0%) | OR=1.29 [0.14, 11.54], RR=1.12 [0.48, 2.66] (p=1.000) |
droite | 9 (45.0%) | 7 (43.8%) | 2 (50.0%) | ||
Présence d’une complication | 7 (35.0%) | 6 (37.5%) | 1 (25.0%) | OR=1.80 [0.15, 21.48], RR=1.50 [0.37, 6.06] (p=1.000) | |
Hémopéritoine | 5 (25.0%) | 5 (31.2%) | 0 | OR=4.30 [0.20, 94.92], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.530) | |
Phénomène douloureux | 2 (10.0%) | 1 (6.2%) | 1 (25.0%) | OR=0.20 [0.01, 4.17], RR=0.25 [0.03, 1.81] (p=0.368) | |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL) à l’admission | *M(R) | 1505 (153:10962) | 1171.5 (153:10962) | 1520 (1422:1700) | MW: p=0.945 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J1 | *M(R) | 750.36 (141:4800) | 194.72 (141:4800) | 1306 (1306:1306) | MW: p=1.000 |
Taux de β-hCG (mUI/mL)à J3 | *M(R) | 1126.85 (180:16392) | 15087.5 (13783:16392) | 853.7 (550:1400) | MW: p=0.200 |
Endomètre décidualisé | 20 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Visualisation d’une formation inhomogène en paraovarien | 20 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) | |
Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas | 4 (20.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | 0 | OR=3.24 [0.14, 72.94], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf] (p=0.538) | |
Abstention thérapeutique | 1 (5.0%) | 0 | 1 (25.0%) | OR=0.07 [0.00, 2.12], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.200) | |
Traitement médical (Methotrexate) | 3 (15.0%) | 0 | 3 (75.0%) | OR=0.01 [0.00, 0.39], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00] (p=0.004) | |
Évolution post-interventionnelle | favorable | 20 (100.0%) | 16 (100.0%) | 4 (100.0%) | V=NaN (p=1.000) |
Durée d’hospitalisation post-interventionnelle (jours) | *M(R) | 2 (0:4) | 2 (1:3) | 2.5 (0:4) | MW: p=0.806 |
*M(R) = Mediana (min:max); MW = Test Mann-Whitney; OR/RR = odds-ratio / risc relativ [cu IC 95%] și p calculat prin testul Fisher); V = Cramer V (p calculat prin testul Chi²). | |||||
Tabel 120: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Milieu de vie.
vs. Living | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | rural | urbain | (total) |
oui | 3 (18.8% / 75.0%) | 13 (81.2% / 81.2%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 1 (25.0% / 25.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 18.8%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=0.69 [0.05, 9.21], RR=0.75 [0.16, 3.60], phi=0.06 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 116: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Milieu de vie.
Tabel 121: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Parité.
vs. Parity (P) | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | 0 | >0 | (total) |
oui | 12 (75.0% / 75.0%) | 4 (25.0% / 100.0%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 4 (100.0% / 25.0%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 17 (81.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=0.31 [0.01, 6.95], RR=0.75, phi=0.25 (p=0.538) | |||
Figure 117: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Parité.
Tabel 122: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Gestité.
vs. Gestity (G) | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | 1 | >1 | (total) |
oui | 9 (56.2% / 69.2%) | 7 (43.8% / 100.0%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 4 (100.0% / 30.8%) | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 14 (66.7%) | 7 (33.3%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=0.14 [0.01, 3.05], RR=0.56 [0.44, 0.72], phi=0.37 (p=0.249) | |||
Figure 118: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Gestité.
Tabel 123: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Côté de la GEU.
vs. Side of the ectopic pregnancy | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | gauche | droite | (total) |
oui | 9 (56.2% / 81.8%) | 7 (43.8% / 77.8%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 2 (50.0% / 18.2%) | 2 (50.0% / 22.2%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 12 (57.1%) | 9 (42.9%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=1.29 [0.14, 11.54], RR=1.12 [0.48, 2.66], phi=0.05 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 119: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Côté de la GEU.
Tabel 124: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Présence d’une complication.
vs. Presence of a complication | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 6 (37.5% / 85.7%) | 10 (62.5% / 76.9%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 1 (25.0% / 14.3%) | 3 (75.0% / 23.1%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=1.80 [0.15, 21.48], RR=1.50 [0.37, 6.06], phi=0.10 (p=1.000) | |||
Figure 120: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Présence d’une complication.
Tabel 125: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Hémopéritoine.
vs. Haemoperitoneum | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 5 (31.2% / 100.0%) | 11 (68.8% / 73.3%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 26.7%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 5 (23.8%) | 16 (76.2%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=4.30 [0.20, 94.92], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.29 (p=0.530) | |||
Figure 121: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Hémopéritoine.
Tabel 126: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Phénomène douloureux.
vs. Painful phenomenon | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 1 (6.2% / 50.0%) | 15 (93.8% / 83.3%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 1 (25.0% / 50.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 16.7%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=0.20 [0.01, 4.17], RR=0.25 [0.03, 1.81], phi=0.25 (p=0.368) | |||
Figure 122: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Phénomène douloureux.
Tabel 127: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
vs. Presence of liquid in the Douglas poach | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 4 (25.0% / 100.0%) | 12 (75.0% / 75.0%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 4 (100.0% / 25.0%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 4 (19.0%) | 17 (81.0%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=3.24 [0.14, 72.94], RR=Inf [Inf, Inf], phi=0.25 (p=0.538) | |||
Figure 123: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Liquide dans le cul-de-sac de Douglas.
Tabel 128: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Abstention thérapeutique.
vs. No treatment (expectant approach) | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 16 (100.0% / 84.2%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 1 (25.0% / 100.0%) | 3 (75.0% / 15.8%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 2 (9.5%) | 19 (90.5%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=0.07 [0.00, 2.12], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.46 (p=0.200) | |||
Figure 124: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Abstention thérapeutique.
Tabel 129: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
vs. Medical treatment (Methotrexate) | |||
Laparoscopic salpingectomy | oui | non | (total) |
oui | 0 (0.0% / 0.0%) | 16 (100.0% / 94.1%) | 16 (80.0%) |
non | 3 (75.0% / 100.0%) | 1 (25.0% / 5.9%) | 4 (20.0%) |
(total) | 3 (14.3%) | 18 (85.7%) | 20 (100%) |
OR=0.01 [0.00, 0.39], RR=0.00 [0.00, 0.00], phi=0.84 (p=0.004) | |||
Figure 125: Relation between Salpingectomie laparoscopique and Traitement médical (Methotrexate).
2.4.14 Évolution post-interventionnelle
RColorBrewer::display.brewer.all()
2.5 Discuții
2.6 Concluzii
3 Bibliogrfie
- R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.