Anatomy of the sonographic post-cesarean uterus.
Cesarean section
Niche
Post-cesarean
Ultrasound
Uterus
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
19
02
2021
accepted:
15
04
2021
pubmed:
24
4
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
entrez:
23
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aim to describe the sonographic uterine anatomy after a cesarean section (CS), test the reproducibility of predefined measurements from the BSUM study, and report the distribution of these measurements. This is a descriptive observational study where 200 women with a history of only one CS were recruited 12-24 months postoperatively. A 5-13 MHz micro-convex transvaginal transducer was used for the acquisition of volumetric datasets for evaluating the CS scars. We defined 15 distinct measurements including the residual myometrial thickness (RMT). RMT ratio was calculated as a percentage of RMT to the assumed pre-cesarean anterior uterine wall thickness. A P value below 0.05 is utilized for significant statistical analysis. Patients were included on average 18.5 months post-cesarean. The uterus was anteflexed in 82.5% and retroflexed in 17.5%. Myometrial defects at the site of CS manifest in two forms, either as a niche or as fibrosis. Patients are classified into four groups: those with isolated niches (45%), combined niches and fibrosis (38.5%), isolated fibrosis (11%), and lacking both (5%). The median RMT ratio for these groups was 63.09, 40.93, 59.84, and 100% with a standard deviation of 16.73, 12.95, 16.59, and 0, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) remained above 0.9 for all distinct measurements among these groups except for those of RMT, where ICC varied between 0.47 and 0.96. The RMT ratio shows a constant ICC at 0.94 regardless of the group. The post-cesarean uterus is often anteflexed, and a myometrial loss of about 50% is normally expected. The pattern of this loss is in the form of a predominantly sharp-edged and echogenic niche, fibrosis, or a combination of both. The proposed RMT ratio takes these changes into consideration and results in a reproducible quantification. We hypothesize that different adverse outcomes could be attributed to the different scar patterns.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33891206
doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06074-y
pii: 10.1007/s00404-021-06074-y
pmc: PMC8553730
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1485-1491Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1995 Jan;14(1):16-20
pubmed: 7883420
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;117(3):525-532
pubmed: 21343754
Adv Anat Embryol Cell Biol. 2006;183:i-vii, 1-144, back cover
pubmed: 16570866
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;40(5):549-56
pubmed: 22323065
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jul;108(1):12-20
pubmed: 16816050
J Clin Ultrasound. 1982 Jul-Aug;10(6):271-4
pubmed: 6811618
BJOG. 2010 Aug;117(9):1119-26
pubmed: 20604776
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Apr;107(4):927-41
pubmed: 16582134
J Perinat Med. 2018 Oct 25;46(8):857-866
pubmed: 29570454
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;34(1):85-9
pubmed: 19565535
J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Oct;20(10):1105-15
pubmed: 11587017
BJOG. 2018 Aug;125(9):1097-1108
pubmed: 29215795
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;50(1):105-109
pubmed: 27419374
Radiol Med. 2015 Feb;120(2):228-38
pubmed: 25100304
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;205(3):262.e1-8
pubmed: 22071057
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr;43(4):372-82
pubmed: 23996650
J Ultrasound Med. 2018 May;37(5):1179-1183
pubmed: 29076539
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;50(1):100-104
pubmed: 27420402
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Oct 29;14:365
pubmed: 25733122
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):107-115
pubmed: 29536581
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Jan;81:67-71
pubmed: 13736585
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Oct 22;:
pubmed: 33094538
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;31(1):72-7
pubmed: 18061960