Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women
- PMID: 21343754
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209abf0
Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the association between the appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination of nonpregnant women and the outcome of subsequent pregnancies and deliveries.
Methods: A total of 162 women who had ever given birth by cesarean underwent transvaginal ultrasound examination of the hysterotomy scar 6 to 9 months after the latest cesarean delivery. Published ultrasound definitions of large scar defects were used. The appearance of the hysterotomy scar at ultrasound examination was compared with the outcome of subsequent pregnancies and deliveries. Clinical information on subsequent pregnancies was obtained from medical records.
Results: Six women were lost to follow-up, leaving 156 for analysis. Of these 156 women, 69 became pregnant after the ultrasound examination (99 pregnancies, 65 deliveries). There were no placental complications or scar pregnancies. At the first repeat cesarean delivery after the ultrasound examination, 5.3% (1/19) of the women with an intact scar or a small scar defect had uterine dehiscence or rupture compared with 42.9% (3/7) of those with a large defect (P=.047), odds ratio 11.8 (95% confidence interval 0.7-746).
Conclusion: Our results point toward a likely association between large defects in the hysterotomy scar after cesarean delivery detected by transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women and uterine rupture or dehiscence in subsequent pregnancy.
Comment in
-
Uterine scar assessment: how should it be done before trial of labor after cesarean delivery?Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;117(3):521-522. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ce593. Obstet Gynecol. 2011. PMID: 21343752 No abstract available.
-
Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women.Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;117(6):1438. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e24bc. Obstet Gynecol. 2011. PMID: 21606763 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women.Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;117(6):1438. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e24bc. Obstet Gynecol. 2011. PMID: 21606763 No abstract available.
-
Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Apr;53(4):438-442. doi: 10.1002/uog.20184. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019. PMID: 30484920 Clinical Trial.
-
Assessment of Cesarean hysterotomy scar before pregnancy and at 11-14 weeks of gestation: a prospective cohort study.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;50(1):105-109. doi: 10.1002/uog.16220. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 27419374
-
Prediction of scar integrity and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Apr;27(2):285-95. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Oct 24. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013. PMID: 23103207 Review.
-
Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect.Am J Perinatol. 2012 Jun;29(6):465-71. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1304829. Epub 2012 Mar 7. Am J Perinatol. 2012. PMID: 22399223
Cited by
-
Imaging evaluation of uterine perforation and rupture.Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Oct;46(10):4946-4966. doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03171-z. Epub 2021 Jun 15. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021. PMID: 34129055 Review.
-
Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jan;99(1):69-78. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13714. Epub 2019 Sep 26. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020. PMID: 31441500 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Case Report: Laparoscopic Isthmocele Repair on an 8 Weeks Pregnant Uterus.Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Feb 17;9:831588. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.831588. eCollection 2022. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022. PMID: 35252262 Free PMC article.
-
Pregnancy in an isthmocele: A rare case from Nepal.Clin Case Rep. 2023 Jan 16;11(1):e6875. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.6875. eCollection 2023 Jan. Clin Case Rep. 2023. PMID: 36694651 Free PMC article.
-
Spectroscopic photoacoustic/ultrasound/optical-microscopic multimodal intrarectal endoscopy for detection of centimeter-scale deep lesions.Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023 Jan 26;11:1136005. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1136005. eCollection 2023. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023. PMID: 36777250 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Blanc B, Capelle M, Bretelle F, Leclaire M, Bouvenot J. The worrying rise in the frequency of cesarean section [French]. Bull Acad Natl Med 2006;190:905–13.
-
- Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006;33:270–7.
-
- Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113.
-
- Ben Nagi J, Ofili-Yebovi D, Marsh M, Jurkovic D. First-trimester cesarean scar pregnancy evolving into placenta previa/accreta at term. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:1569–73.
-
- Hamilton BE, Minino AM, Martin JA, Kochanek KD, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2005. Pediatrics 2007;119:345–60.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical