Agreement between transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect
- PMID: 31077871
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.05.013
Agreement between transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect
Abstract
Objectives: to assess the agreement between saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) and transvaginal sonography (TVS) in the evaluation of cesarean section scar defect (CSD) regarding its width, depth, and shape and also in assessing the anterior myometrium, and residual myometrium related to the scar.
Material and methods: a prospective study during the period between August 2017 and January 2018 was conducted in which 102 consecutive participants underwent primary cesarean section in Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital were assessed six weeks after CS to evaluate for CSD presence by using both SCSH and TVS.
Results: CSD could be detected only in 59.8% of women by TVS and 70.5% by SCSH with good agreement strength (Cohen kappa = 0.805). TVS was 84.72% sensitive and 100.00% specific in identifying CSD diagnosed by SCSH. The PPV, NPV, and accuracy of TVS were 100.00%, 73.17%, and 89.21%, respectively. The mean anterior myometrial thickness (AMT) did not differ when assessed by both TVS and SCSH, while the mean niche width was 2.56 ± 1.98 mm with SCSH compared to 2.17 ± 1.63 mm with TVS(r = 0.954), and its mean depth was 2.76 ± 2.02 mm for SCSH and 1.57 ± 1.51 mm in TVS(r = 0.812). The mean residual myometrium was 10.09 ± 2.74 mm in SCSH while was 11.18 ± 2.50 mm for TVS(r = 0.914) CONCLUSION: cesarean scar defects in non-pregnant women are better evaluated at SCSH than at unenhanced TVS as more defects detected by SCSH and better evaluation of its shape, borders and size.
Keywords: Cesarean section; Cesarean section scar defect; Sonohysterography; Transvaginal sonography.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Assessment of Cesarean hysterotomy scar in non-pregnant women: reliability of transvaginal sonography with and without contrast enhancement.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;47(4):499-505. doi: 10.1002/uog.14833. Epub 2016 Feb 29. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 25720922
-
Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;35(1):75-83. doi: 10.1002/uog.7496. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010. PMID: 20034000
-
Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;23(3):289-92. doi: 10.1002/uog.999. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004. PMID: 15027020
-
Two-dimensional transvaginal sonography vs saline contrast sonohysterography for diagnosing endometrial polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct;56(4):506-515. doi: 10.1002/uog.22161. Epub 2020 Sep 14. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020. PMID: 32730635
-
Cesarean scar defects: management of an iatrogenic pathology whose prevalence has dramatically increased.Fertil Steril. 2020 Apr;113(4):704-716. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.037. Fertil Steril. 2020. PMID: 32228874 Review.
Cited by
-
Postoperative morphologic changes of the isthmocele and clinical impact in patients treated by channel-like (360°) hysteroscopic technique.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Jan;160(1):326-333. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14387. Epub 2022 Aug 23. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023. PMID: 35929843 Free PMC article.
-
Ultrasound outcomes and surgical parameters of the double-layer purse-string uterine closure technique in cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.BMC Surg. 2025 Feb 8;25(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02796-x. BMC Surg. 2025. PMID: 39923041 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical