Current management of ruptured corpus luteum

Arie Raziel*, Raphael Ron-El, Mordechai Pansky, Shlomo Arieli, Ian Bukovsky, Eliyahu Caspi

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


The objectives of the study are to assess current management of the rather frequent event of ruptured corpus luteum. Special emphasis is made on the value of ultrasonography, laparoscopy and culdocentesis in deciding appropriate treatment. A series of 70 patients with ruptured corpus luteum diagnosed and treated during a period of 6 years in one institution in Israel is reported. Eighteen patients with concurrent ruptured corpus luteum and ectopic pregnancy are included. Abdominal pain, the most prevalent presenting symptom, has no typical characteristics. The correlation between large amount of fluid as observed by ultrasound and the finding of > 250 ml of blood at laparotomy is very high. Culdocentesis was performed in only 21 patients. Surgical intervention (laparoscopy, laparotomy following laparoscopy or direct laparotomy) was carried out in 58 patients (83%). The remaining 12 cases were handled by observation only. Forty patients required laparotomy in whom 17 underwent wedge resection. We conclude that observation is sufficient treatment in hemodynamically stable patients, without severe abdominal pain and in the presence of a small amount of pelvic fluid demonstrated by ultrasound. When a large amount of fluid is observed and/or in the presence of severe abdominal pain laparoscopy should be performed on admission. Direct laparotomy is mandatory in case of circulatory collapse.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-81
Number of pages5
JournalEuropean Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jun 1993
Externally publishedYes


  • Corpus luteum bleeding
  • Corpus luteum rupture
  • Rupture of corpus luteum in pregnancy


Dive into the research topics of 'Current management of ruptured corpus luteum'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this