The association of endometrial closure during cesarean section to the risk of developing uterine scar defect: a randomized control trial.
Cesarean scar defect
Dysmenorrhea
Endometrial layer
Intermenstrual bleeding
Residual myometrial thickness
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:
18 Mar 2024
18 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
17
12
2023
accepted:
04
02
2024
medline:
19
3
2024
pubmed:
19
3
2024
entrez:
18
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The surgical technique for uterine closure following cesarean section influences the healing of the cesarean scar; however, there is still no consensus on the optimal technique regarding the closure of the endometrium layer. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of closure versus non-closure of the endometrium during cesarean section on the risk to develop uterine scar defect and associated symptoms. A randomized prospective study was conducted of women undergoing first elective cesarean section at a single tertiary medical center. Exclusion criteria included previous uterine scar, preterm delivery and dysmorphic uterus. Women were randomized for endometrial layer closure versus non-closure. Six months following surgery, women were invited to the ambulatory gynecological clinic for follow-up visit. 2-D transvaginal ultrasound examination was performed to evaluate the cesarean scar characteristics. In addition, women were evaluated for symptoms that might be associated with uterine scar defect. Primary outcome was defined as the residual myometrial thickness (RMT) at the uterine cesarean scar. Data are presented as median and interquartile range. 130 women were recruited to the study, of them follow-up was achieved in 113 (86.9%). 61 (54%) vs. 52 (46%) of the women were included in the endometrial closure vs. non-closure groups, respectively. Groups were comparable for patient's demographic, clinical characteristics and follow-up time for postoperative evaluation. Median RMT was 5.3 (3.0-7.7) vs. 4.6 (3.0-6.5) mm for the endometrial closure and non-closure groups, respectively (p = 0.38). Substantially low RMT (< 2.5 mm) was measured in four (6.6%) women in the endometrial closure group and three (5.8%) of the women in the non-closure group (p = 0.86). All other uterine scar sonographic measurements, as well as dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain and intermenstrual bleeding rates were comparable between the groups. Closure versus non-closure of the endometrial layer during cesarean uterine incision repair has no significant difference in cesarean scar characteristics and symptom rates at 6 months follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38498161
doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07417-1
pii: 10.1007/s00404-024-07417-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai NE (2013) Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD004453
Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ (2009) Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34(1):85–89
doi: 10.1002/uog.6405
pubmed: 19565535
Tulandi T, Cohen A (2016) Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(6):893–902
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.020
pubmed: 27393285
van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA (2014) Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG 121(2):236–244
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12542
pubmed: 24373597
Mohr-Sasson A, Dadon T, Brandt A, Shats M, Axcelrod M, Meyer R et al (2023) The association between uterine scar defect (niche) and the presence of symptoms. Reprod Biomed Online 47:103221
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.012
pubmed: 37277298
Kremer TG, Ghiorzi IB, Dibi RP (2019) Isthmocele: an overview of diagnosis and treatment. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 65(5):714–721
doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.5.714
pubmed: 31166450
Tanos V, Toney ZA (2019) Uterine scar rupture—Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 59:115–131
doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.01.009
pubmed: 30837118
Sholapurkar SL (2018) Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (Niche): detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J Clin Med Res 10(3):166–173
doi: 10.14740/jocmr3271w
pubmed: 29416572
pmcid: 5798260
Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP (1985) Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 66(1):89–92
pubmed: 4011075
Cohen N, Arush L, Younes G, Lavie O, Goldberg Y (2023) Cesarean scar niche, fertility and uterine rupture during labor—a retrospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 286:107–111
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.011
pubmed: 37235927
Habek D, Orešković N (2023) Silent fundal pre-labor term scar uterine rupture after corporeal cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309:1669–1670
doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07255-7
pubmed: 37840049
Shiber Y, Maymon R, Gal-Kochav M, Kugler N, Pekar-Zlotin M, Smorgick N et al (2023) Caesarean scar pregnancy: is there a light in the end of the tunnel? Arch Gynecol Obstet 307(4):1057–1064
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06888-4
pubmed: 36576560
Mashiach R, Burke YZ (2020) Optimal isthmocele management: hysteroscopic, laparoscopic, or combination. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28:565–574
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.026
pubmed: 33152531
Goldenberg M, Timor I, Mashiach R, Cohen S, Sasson AM (2022) Pregnancy following cesarean scar defect (niche) repair: a cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 306(5):1581–1586
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06688-w
pubmed: 35835918
Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA (2015) Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 30(12):2695–2702
pubmed: 26409016
pmcid: 4643529
Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA et al (2014) Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(4):372–382
doi: 10.1002/uog.13199
pubmed: 23996650
Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri-Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T et al (2019) Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53(1):107–115
doi: 10.1002/uog.19049
pubmed: 29536581
pmcid: 6590297
ACOG committee opinion no (2013) 557: Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 121(4):891–896
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000428646.67925.9a
Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA (2011) Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(1):93–99
doi: 10.1002/uog.8864
pubmed: 21031351
Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L (2010) Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35(1):75–83
doi: 10.1002/uog.7496
pubmed: 20034000
Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Dudenhausen JW, Bujak V, Kalache KD, Henrich W (2017) Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after single- or double-layer uterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96(12):1484–1489
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13213
pubmed: 28832909
Tower AM, Frishman GN (2013) Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20(5):562–572
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.03.008
pubmed: 23680518
Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, Grivell RM (2014) Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD004732
Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC (1997) One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 89(1):16–18
doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)84257-3
pubmed: 8990429
Durnwald C, Mercer B (2003) Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(4):925–929
doi: 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)01056-1
pubmed: 14586327
Cheong YC, Premkumar G, Metwally M, Peacock JL, Li TC (2009) To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 147(1):3–8
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.003
pubmed: 19596507
Murji A, Sanders AP, Monteiro I, Haiderbhai S, Matelski J, Walsh C et al (2022) Cesarean scar defects and abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 118(4):758–766
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.031
pubmed: 35985862
Armstrong F, Mulligan K, Dermott RM, Bartels HC, Carroll S, Robson M et al (2022) Cesarean scar niche: an evolving concern in clinical practice. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 161:356–366
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14509
pubmed: 36317541
Antoine C, Meyer JA, Silverstein JS, Alexander J, Oh C, Timor-Tritsch IE (2022) The impact of uterine incision closure techniques on post-cesarean delivery niche formation and size: sonohysterographic examination of nonpregnant women. J Ultrasound Med 41(7):1763–1771
doi: 10.1002/jum.15859
pubmed: 34726789
Wood RM, Simon H, Oz AU (1999) Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 44(9):788–795
pubmed: 10509303
Tahermanesh K, Mirgalobayat S, Aziz-Ahari A, Maleki M, Hashemi N, Samimi M et al (2021) Babu and Magon uterine closure technique during cesarean section: a randomized double-blind trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 47(9):3186–3195
doi: 10.1111/jog.14889
pubmed: 34131999
Genovese F, Schiattarella A, D’Urso G, Vitale SG, Carugno J, Verzì G et al (2023) Impact of hysterotomy closure technique on subsequent cesarean scar defects formation: a systematic review. Gynecol Obstet Invest 88:81–90
doi: 10.1159/000528144
pubmed: 36724750