Preview

Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy

Advanced search

THE SCAR ON THE UTERUS AFTER CESAREAN SECTION AND THE OPTIMAL ALGORITHM FOR DIAGNOSTICS

https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90

Abstract

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<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.

About the Authors

O. N. Nozhnitseva
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg


I. A. Semenov
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg


V. F. Bezhenar
Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Russian Federation
St. Petersburg


References

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.)

15. 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.)

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.)


Review

For citations:


Nozhnitseva O.N., Semenov I.A., Bezhenar V.F. THE SCAR ON THE UTERUS AFTER CESAREAN SECTION AND THE OPTIMAL ALGORITHM FOR DIAGNOSTICS. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2019;(2):85-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90

Views: 15158


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2079-5343 (Print)