<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ldt</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Лучевая диагностика и терапия</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2079-5343</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Baltic Medical Education Center</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">ldt-418</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ОРИГИНАЛЬНЫЕ СТАТЬИ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>ORIGINAL RESEARCH</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>РУБЕЦ НА МАТКЕ ПОСЛЕ ОПЕРАЦИИ КЕСАРЕВА СЕЧЕНИЯ И ОПТИМАЛЬНЫЙ АЛГОРИТМ ДИАГНОСТИКИ ЕГО СОСТОЯНИЯ</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>THE SCAR ON THE UTERUS AFTER CESAREAN SECTION AND THE OPTIMAL ALGORITHM FOR DIAGNOSTICS</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Ножницева</surname><given-names>О. Н.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Nozhnitseva</surname><given-names>O. N.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Ножницева Ольга Николаевна — ассистент кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и репродуктологии, врач отделения стационар дневного пребывания клиники акушерства и гинекологии</p><p>Россия, 197022, Санкт-Петербург, улица Льва Толстого, д. 6–8</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>St. Petersburg</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">9111631880@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Семенов</surname><given-names>И. А.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Semenov</surname><given-names>I. A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Семенов Игорь Александрович — ассистент кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и неонатологии, врач отделения функциональной диагностики клиники акушерства и гинекологии</p><p>197022, Санкт-Петербург, улица Льва Толстого, д. 6–8</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>St. Petersburg</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">7520203@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Беженарь</surname><given-names>В. Ф.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Bezhenar</surname><given-names>V. F.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Беженарь Виталий Федорович — д.м.н., профессор, заведующий кафедрой акушерства, гинекологии и неонатологии, заведующий кафедрой акушерства, гинекологии и репродуктологии, руководитель клиники акушерства и гинекологии гинекологии</p><p>197022, Санкт-Петербург, улица Льва Толстого, д. 6–8</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>St. Petersburg</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">bez-vitaly@yandex.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Первый Санкт-Петербургский государственный медицинский университет им. акад. И. П. Павлова</institution><country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2019</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>08</month><year>2019</year></pub-date><volume>0</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>85</fpage><lpage>90</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Ножницева О.Н., Семенов И.А., Беженарь В.Ф., 2019</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2019</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Ножницева О.Н., Семенов И.А., Беженарь В.Ф.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Nozhnitseva O.N., Semenov I.A., Bezhenar V.F.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://radiag.bmoc-spb.ru/jour/article/view/418">https://radiag.bmoc-spb.ru/jour/article/view/418</self-uri><abstract><p>Введение. В публикациях, посвященных изучению морфологических изменений рубца на матке после кесарева сечения (КС) у небеременных женщин, описаны различные методики визуализации и определения «аномалий» рубца на матке. Целью исследования явилось определение оптимального алгоритма диагностики локальных истончений рубца на матке вне беременности. Материалы и методы. Пациенткам не ранее 6 месяцев после КС проведено УЗИ органов малого таза. Выявлено 40 пациенток, имевших истончение рубца на матке в виде «ниши». Вторым этапом обследованным выполнена МРТ. Кроме того, у одной пациентки использовалось УЗИ с внутриматочным введением изотонического раствора натрия хлорида (физиологического раствора), у другой — УЗИ с применением микропузырькового препарата гексафторида серы. Всем пациенткам с диагностированной «нишей» рубца проводилась гистероскопия. Результаты. По данным проведенного УЗИ выявлено, что остаточная толщина миометрия рубца на матке составила в среднем 3,3±1,54 мм. Чувствительность метода 63%, специфичность 62%. В результате проведенной МРТ выявлено, что остаточная толщина миометрия 3,44±1,64 мм. Чувствительность метода 80%, специфичность 71% (p&lt;0,05). При проведении гистероскопии «нишу» удалось визуализировать в 95% случаев. Заключение. Для уменьшения погрешности измерений и решения вопроса о необходимости хирургического лечения необходимо использовать минимум два различных исследования (рутинное УЗИ, УЗИ с контрастированием, МРТ). В сложных диагностических случаях необходимо в качестве третьей методики использовать гистероскопию, позволяющую точно визуализировать дефект.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Introduction. The technique of visualization, the definition of «anomalies» of the uterine scar differ in all of publications devoted to the study of morphological changes of the uterine scar after cesarean section (CS) in non-pregnant women. The aim of our study was to determine the optimal algorithm for the diagnosis of uterine scar local thinning. Materials and methods. The ultrasound examination of pelvic organs was performed for thepatients not less than 6 months after CS. 40 women had scar thinning creating the shape of «niche». Next there was performedthe MRI study. One patient had ultrasound the contrast examination with the intrauterine introduction of the physiological solution and for the other one we performed the contrast examination with microbubble preparation of the sulfur hexafluoride. All the patients with the«niche» detectedunderwent the hysteroscopy. Results. The ultrasound examination revealed that the residual thickness of the myometrium of the uterine scar was 3,3±1,54 mm. The sensitivity of the method was 63% and specificity was 62%. The MRI revealed the residual thickness of the myometrium 3,44±1,64 mm. The sensitivity of the method was 80% and the specificity was 71% (p&lt;0,05). During the hysteroscopy the «niche» was visualized in 95% of cases. Conclusion. To reduce the measurement error and to detect the necessity of surgical treatment there is necessary to apply at least two different studies (routine ultrasound, ultrasound with contrast agent and MRI). In the severe cases there is important to use hysteroscopy as the additional technique, which allows to visualize the defect accurately.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>кесарево сечение</kwd><kwd>рубец на матке</kwd><kwd>«ниша» рубца</kwd><kwd>диагностика рубца на матке</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>сesarean section</kwd><kwd>scar on the uterus</kwd><kwd>«niche» of the scar</kwd><kwd>diagnostics of the scar on the uterus</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Guise J.M., Eden K., Emeis C., Denman M.A., Marshall N., Fu R.R., Janik R., Nygren P., Walker M., McDonagh M. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights // Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess (Full Rep). 2010. Vol. 191. Р. 1–397.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Guise J.M., Eden K., Emeis C., Denman M.A., Marshall N., Fu R.R., Janik R., Nygren P., Walker M., McDonagh M. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights // Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess (Full Rep). 2010. Vol. 191. Р. 1–397.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Mathai M., Hofmeyr G.J., Mathai N.E. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section // Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. Vol. 5. CD004453. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub3.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Mathai M., Hofmeyr G.J., Mathai N.E. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section // Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. Vol. 5. CD004453. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub3.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Monteagudo A., Carreno C., Timor-Tritsch I.E. Saline infusion sonohysterographyin nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the «niche» in the scar // J. Ultrasound. Med. 2001. Vol. 20. Р. 1105–1115.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Monteagudo A., Carreno C., Timor-Tritsch I.E. Saline infusion sonohysterographyin nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the «niche» in the scar // J. Ultrasound. Med. 2001. Vol. 20. Р. 1105–1115.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Vervoort A.J., Uittenbogaard L.B., Hehenkamp W.J., Brölmann H.A., Mol B.W., Huirne J.A. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development // Hum. Reprod. 2015. Dec; Vol. 30, No. 12 Р. 2695–2702. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev240. Epub 2015 Sep 25. PubMed PMID: 26409016.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Vervoort A.J., Uittenbogaard L.B., Hehenkamp W.J., Brölmann H.A., Mol B.W., Huirne J.A. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development // Hum. Reprod. 2015. Dec; Vol. 30, No. 12 Р. 2695–2702. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev240. Epub 2015 Sep 25. PubMed PMID: 26409016.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Sholapurkar S.L. Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate // J. Clin. Med. Res. 2018 Mar; Vol. 10, No. 3. Р. 166–173. doi: 10.14740/jocmr3271w.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sholapurkar S.L. Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate // J. Clin. Med. Res. 2018 Mar; Vol. 10, No. 3. Р. 166–173. doi: 10.14740/jocmr3271w.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Ofili‐Yebovi D., Ben‐Nagi J., Sawyer E., Yazbek J., Lee C., Gonzalez J., Jurkovic D. Deficient lower‐segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors // Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008. Vol. 31. Р. 72–77. PMID:18061960.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ofili‐Yebovi D., Ben‐Nagi J., Sawyer E., Yazbek J., Lee C., Gonzalez J., Jurkovic D. Deficient lower‐segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors // Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008. Vol. 31. Р. 72–77. PMID:18061960.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Bij de Vaate A.J., Brolmann H.A., van der Voet L.F., van der Slikke J.W., Veersema S., Huirne J.A. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting // Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011. Vol. 37. Р. 93–99.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Bij de Vaate A.J., Brolmann H.A., van der Voet L.F., van der Slikke J.W., Veersema S., Huirne J.A. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting // Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011. Vol. 37. Р. 93–99.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Vikhareva Osser O., Jokubkiene L., Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination // Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009. Vol. 34. Р. 90–97.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Vikhareva Osser O., Jokubkiene L., Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination // Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009. Vol. 34. Р. 90–97.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Wang C.B., Chiu W.W., Lee C.Y., Sun Y.L., Lin Y.H., Tseng C.J. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position // Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009. Vol. 34. Р. 85–89.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Wang C.B., Chiu W.W., Lee C.Y., Sun Y.L., Lin Y.H., Tseng C.J. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position // Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009. Vol. 34. Р. 85–89.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Menada Valenzano M., Lijoi D., Mistrangelo E., Costantini S., Ragni N. Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after caesarean section: correlation with gynaecological symptoms // Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2006. Vol. 61. Р. 216–222.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Menada Valenzano M., Lijoi D., Mistrangelo E., Costantini S., Ragni N. Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after caesarean section: correlation with gynaecological symptoms // Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2006. Vol. 61. Р. 216–222.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Regnard C., Nosbusch M., Fellemans C., Benali N., van Rysselberghe M., Barlow P., Rozenberg S. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography // Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004. Vol. 23. Р. 289–292.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Regnard C., Nosbusch M., Fellemans C., Benali N., van Rysselberghe M., Barlow P., Rozenberg S. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography // Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004. Vol. 23. Р. 289–292.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Armstrong V, Hansen W.F., Van Voorhis B.J., Syrop C.H. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound // Obstet. Gynecol. 2003. Vol. 101. Р. 61–65.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Armstrong V, Hansen W.F., Van Voorhis B.J., Syrop C.H. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound // Obstet. Gynecol. 2003. Vol. 101. Р. 61–65.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Burger N.F., Darazs B., Boes E.G. An echographic evaluation during the early puerperium of the uterine wound after caesarean section // J. Clin. Ultrasound. 1982. Vol. 10. Р. 271–274.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Burger N.F., Darazs B., Boes E.G. An echographic evaluation during the early puerperium of the uterine wound after caesarean section // J. Clin. Ultrasound. 1982. Vol. 10. Р. 271–274.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Краснопольский В.И., Логутова Л.С., Буянова С.Н. Несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: причины формирования и лечебная тактика // Акушерство и гинекология. 2013. № 12. С. 28–33.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Krasnopol’skij V.I., Logutova L.S., Buyanova S.N. Nesostoyatel’nyj rubec na matke posle kesareva secheniya: prichiny formirovaniya i lechebnaya taktika. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya, 2013, No. 12, рр. 28–33 (In Russ.)</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit15"><label>15</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Чечнева М.А., Мгелиашвили М.В., Титченко Ю.П., Пучкова Н.В., Барто Р.А. Современные методы диагностики несостоятельности швов или рубца на матке после кесарева сечения // Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2013. № 1. С. 73–77.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Buyanova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Chechneva M.A., Mgeliashvili M.V., Titchenko Yu.P., Puchkova N.V., Barto R.A. Sovremennye metody diagnostiki nesostoyatel’nosti shvov ili rubca na matke posle kesareva secheniya. Rossijskij vestnik akushera-ginekologa, 2013, No. 1, рр. 73–77. (In Russ.)</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit16"><label>16</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Naji O., Abdallah Y., Bij De Vaate A.J., Smith A., Pexsters A., Stalder C., McIndoe A., Ghaem-Maghami S., Lees C., Brölmann H.A., Huirne J.A., Timmerman D., Bourne T. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography // Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012. Mar. Vol. 39, No. 3. Р. 252–259. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10077. Review. PubMed PMID: 21858885.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Naji O., Abdallah Y., Bij De Vaate A.J., Smith A., Pexsters A., Stalder C., McIndoe A., Ghaem-Maghami S., Lees C., Brölmann H.A., Huirne J.A., Timmerman D., Bourne T. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography // Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012. Mar. Vol. 39, No. 3. Р. 252–259. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10077. Review. PubMed PMID: 21858885.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit17"><label>17</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Vikhareva O.O., Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women // Obstet. Gynecol. 2011. Vol. 117. Р. 525–532.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Vikhareva O.O., Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women // Obstet. Gynecol. 2011. Vol. 117. Р. 525–532.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit18"><label>18</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Valentin L. Prediction of scar integrity and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery // Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2013. Vol. 27. Р. 285–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Valentin L. Prediction of scar integrity and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery // Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2013. Vol. 27. Р. 285–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit19"><label>19</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Цхай В.Б., Леванович Е.В., Ростовцева Е.С. Сравнительный анализ методов диагностики несостоятельного рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения // Забайкальский медицинский журнал. 2017. № 1. С. 39–42.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ckhaj V.B., Levanovich Е.V., Rostovceva Е.S. Sravnitel’nyj analiz metodov diagnostiki nesostoyatel’nogo rubca na matke posle operacii kesareva secheniya. Zabajkal’skij medicinskij zhurnal, 2017, No. 1, рр. 39–42 (In Russ.)</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
