Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.
cesarean section
double-layer technique
suture healing
uterine scar
uterine suture
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
15
03
2019
revised:
19
07
2019
accepted:
09
08
2019
pubmed:
24
8
2019
medline:
29
4
2020
entrez:
24
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study compared healing of the scars after cesarean section during the first postpartum year using a single- or double-layer suturing technique. Scarring was assessed by a transvaginal ultrasound. We explored the appearance and localization of uterine scars with regard to the obstetric history. Our aim was to compare the position of the scar or defect, if present, its dimensions, and any residual myometrium with respect to the suturing technique during the cesarean section. Women with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies indicated for elective or acute cesarean section were randomly allocated to the uterine closure technique group. During the first postpartum year, their lower uterine segment was examined with a transvaginal ultrasound in three consecutive visits at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. 324 women attended the 12-month visit; of these, 149 underwent single-layer closure of the uterine incision and 175 double-layer technique. A higher proportion of the defects is seen in the single-layer closure technique of suturing. Defects in the single-layer group were wider (0.002) and the residual myometrial thickness in the single-layer group were thinner (0.019). Women who underwent cesarean section at the stage of full cervical dilation had scars that were closer to the external cervical os (0.000). The position of the uterus varies greatly between controls (0.000). The combination of uterine position and scar defect presence changed significantly between controls (0.001), and was significantly dependent on the suturing method (0.003). Defects with or without contact with the uterine cavity changed statistically between controls (0.017). Both types of defects were more common in the single-layer closure technique group. The findings of this study demonstrate that double-layer technique with the first continuous nonlocking suture followed by a second continuous nonlocking suture is associated with better suture healing and greater residual myometrial thickness. No difference was observed between single- and double-layer closure for the presence of maternal infectious morbidity, wound infection or blood transfusion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31441500
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13714
pmc: PMC6973250
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
69-78Subventions
Organisme : PROGRES
Pays : International
Organisme : PROGRES Q 34, Charles University project
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Jan-Feb;12(1):25-8
pubmed: 15904593
BJOG. 2014 Jan;121(2):236-44
pubmed: 24373597
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;211(5):453-60
pubmed: 24912096
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;117(3):525-532
pubmed: 21343754
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Jan;99(1):69-78
pubmed: 31441500
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jan;35(1):75-83
pubmed: 20034000
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;34(1):90-7
pubmed: 19499514
BJOG. 2010 Aug;117(9):1119-26
pubmed: 20604776
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Oct;115(1):5-10
pubmed: 21794864
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;101(1):61-5
pubmed: 12517646
Pak J Med Sci. 2014 May;30(3):530-4
pubmed: 24948973
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;34(1):85-9
pubmed: 19565535
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;47(4):499-505
pubmed: 25720922
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;215(4):439-44
pubmed: 27131590
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):507.e1-507.e6
pubmed: 26522861
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015 Jan 15;64(1):1-65
pubmed: 25603115
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;37(1):93-9
pubmed: 21031351
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010 Apr;32(4):321-327
pubmed: 20500938
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;46(1):118-23
pubmed: 25346492
Am J Perinatol. 2012 Jun;29(6):465-71
pubmed: 22399223
BJOG. 2015 Oct;122(11):1535-41
pubmed: 25088680
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;31(1):72-7
pubmed: 18061960
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;61(4):216-22
pubmed: 16479140