THE ROLE OF ULTRASOUND IN PREVENTING THE LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH REPEATED CESAREAN SECTION

Sucu  Roxana; Bordeianu  Ion

doi:10.33695/rojes.v2i2.30

Sucu Roxana Ovidius University, Constanta, Romania & .„Bucur” Maternity, „St. John” Hospital, Bucharest, Romania
Bordeianu Ion Ovidius University, Constanta, Romania & .„Bucur” Maternity, „St. John” Hospital, Bucharest, Romania

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33695/rojes.v2i2.30

Keywords: cesarean scar, uterine rupture, obstetric emergency, scar dehiscence

Abstract

Ultrasonographic evaluation of the hysterorrhaphy scar is an extremely important element in current obstetrical practice, especially in patients who still want a future pregnancy. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the ultrasound findings of the cesarean scar in the third trimester of pregnancy that can reduce the life-threatening emergencies caused by repeated cesarean section such as uterine rupture of abnormal placental adhesions. We conducted a prospective study that included patients who gave birth by caesarean section and presented at a subsequent pregnancy to be monitored during pregnancy. The study was realized during 2016-2020at the Bucur Maternity Hospital, 'Saint John', Bucharest. A number of 57 patients were included in the analyzed group. A number of 12 pregnant women (21%) monitored both in weeks 30-34 and intraoperatively presented contractions and areas of dehiscence, while 30 (52.6%) pregnant women showed neither contractions nor areas of dehiscence. Women with contractions had an average scar thickness measured in the third trimester of 3.81 mm (SD 1.62, CI: [3.32; 4.30]), and those without contractions a thickness of 4.58 mm (SD 1.25, CI: [3.78; 5.37]. Intraoperatively we identified 3 cases with incomplete uterine rupture. Those cases were previously diagnosed with hysterorraphy scar between 0.15-0.5 cm. The repeated ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar is a good predictive factor for the intraoperative quality of the cesarean scar. With the third trimester ultrasound measurement of the uterine scar thickness, the uterine rupture may be avoided.

References

[1] ‘Medline ® Abstract for Reference 7 of “Cesarean delivery: Preoperative planning and patient preparation” - UpToDate’. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-preoperative-planning-and-patient-preparation/abstract/7 (accessed Mar. 09, 2021).
[2] A. J. M. Bij de Vaate et al., ‘Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review’, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 372–382, Apr. 2014.
[3] A. Woźniak, K. Pyra, H. R. Tinto, and S. Woźniak, ‘Ultrasonographic criteria of cesarean scar defect evaluation’, J. Ultrason., vol. 18, no. 73, pp. 162–165, 2018.
[4] P. Uharček, A. Brešťanský, J. Ravinger, A. Máňová, and M. Zajacová, ‘Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness at term in women with previous cesarean delivery’, Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., vol. 292, no. 3, pp. 609–612, Sep. 2015.
[5] E. Barzilay et al., ‘Sonographic assessment of the lower uterine segment during active labor in women with or without a uterine scar - a prospective study’, J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. Off. J. Eur. Assoc. Perinat. Med. Fed. Asia Ocean. Perinat. Soc. Int. Soc. Perinat. Obstet., vol. 31, no. 14, pp. 1885–1888, Jul. 2018
[6] F. Fuchs, B. Monet, T. Ducruet, N. Chaillet, and F. Audibert, ‘Effect of maternal age on the risk of preterm birth: A large cohort study’, PloS One, vol. 13, no. 1, p. e0191002, 2018
[7] L. (Lucet) F. van der Voet, A. M. J. B. de Vaate, M. W. Heymans, H. A. M. Brölmann, S. Veersema, and J. A. F. Huirne, ‘Prognostic Factors for Niche Development in the Uterine Caesarean Section Scar’, Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., vol. 213, pp. 31–32, Jun. 2017
[8] B. L. Brahmalakshmy and P. Kushtagi, ‘Variables influencing the integrity of lower uterine segment in post-cesarean pregnancy’, Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., vol. 291, no. 4, pp. 755–762, Apr. 2015.
[9] Z. C. Frank and A. B. Caughey, ‘Pregnancy in Women With a History of Uterine Rupture’, Obstet. Gynecol. Surv., vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 703–708, Dec. 2018.
[10] P. Szkodziak, A. Stępniak, P. Czuczwar, F. Szkodziak, T. Paszkowski, and S. Woźniak, ‘Is it necessary to correct a caesarean scar defect before a subsequent pregnancy? A report of three cases’, J. Int. Med. Res., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 2248–2255, May 2019.
[11] T. Eshkoli, A. Y. Weintraub, J. Baron, and E. Sheiner, ‘The significance of a uterine rupture in subsequent births’, Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., vol. 292, no. 4, pp. 799–803, Oct. 2015.
[12] C.-B. Wang, W.-W.-C. Chiu, C.-Y. Lee, Y.-L. Sun, Y.-H. Lin, and C.-J. Tseng, ‘Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position’, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 85–89, Jul. 2009.
[13] X. Zhou, H. Li, and X. Fu, ‘Identifying possible risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy based on a retrospective study of 291 cases’, J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 272–278, Feb. 2020.
[14] S. Gerli, G. Baiocchi, A. Favilli, and G. C. Di Renzo, ‘New treatment option for early spontaneous rupture of a postmyomectomy gravid uterus’, Fertil. Steril., vol. 96, no. 2, pp. e97-98, Aug. 2011.
[15] A. Shahid, O. Olowu, G. Kandasamy, C. O’Donnell, and F. Odejinmi, ‘Laparoscopic management of a 16-week ruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy: a case and literature review’, Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., vol. 282, no. 2, pp. 121–125, Aug. 2010
[16] A. Monteagudo, C. Carreno, and I. E. Timor-Tritsch, ‘Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar’, J. Ultrasound Med. Off. J. Am. Inst. Ultrasound Med., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1105–1115, Oct. 2001
[17] A. Ash, A. Smith, and D. Maxwell, ‘Caesarean scar pregnancy’, BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 253–263, Mar. 2007.
[18] C.-B. Wang and C.-J. Tseng, ‘Primary evacuation therapy for Cesarean scar pregnancy: three new cases and review’, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 222–226, 2006
[19] J. Glavind, L. D. Madsen, N. Uldbjerg, and M. Dueholm, ‘Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study’, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 207–212, 2013
[20] A. Di Spiezio Sardo, G. Saccone, R. McCurdy, E. Bujold, G. Bifulco, and V. Berghella, ‘Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 578–583, Nov. 2017.
[21] S. I. Stegwee et al., ‘Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., vol. 125, no. 9, pp. 1097–1108, Aug. 2018,