POSSIBILITIES OF METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE UTERINE WALL AFTER CESAREAN SECTION


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

Despite numerous investigations demonstrating the high rate of spontaneous delivery after previous cesarean section and the relative low risk of hysterorrhexis, the number of repeated operations in women with uterine scars is constantly growing. Evaluation of the lower uterine segment raises a number of questions: in what postpartum period examinations should be performed, what methods are most effective in diagnosing the state of a scar, and what evaluation criteria should be used. Ultrasonography is now considered to be a basic method for visualizing anatomic structures in obstetrics. Hysterosalpyngography, echohysterography, hysteroscopy, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging are also used to detect myometrial defects. The above methods for assessing the state of a surgical area are of informative value in the diagnosis of space-occupying lesions or uterine wall defects. Scar defects can be identified by hysterography, echohysterography, and transvaginal echography in 58, 59, and 37% of cases, respectively. At the same time, the information provided by the above techniques does not contain significant criteria characterizing the qualitative properties of a scar, which fails to predict its functional state.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

A. PRIKHODKO

Academician V. I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: a_prikhodko@oparina4.ru
Moscow

O. BAYEV

Academician V. I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: o_baev@oparina4.ru
Moscow

S. LUNKOV

Academician V. I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: s_lunkov@oparina4.ru
Moscow

O. EREMINA

Academician V. I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: o_eremina@oparina4.ru
Moscow

A. GUS

Academician V. I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: a_gus@oparina4.ru
Moscow

参考

  1. Савельева Г.М., Караганова Е.Я., Курцер М.А., Кутакова Ю.Ю., Панина О.Б., Трофимова О.А. Кесарево сечение в современном акушерстве. Акушерство и гинекология. 2007; 2: 3-8.
  2. Савельева Г.М., Курцер М.А., Шалина Р.И. Роль интранатальной охраны плода в улучшении перинатальных исходов. Акушерство и гинекология. 2000; 5: 3-8.
  3. Серов В.Н., Стрижаков А.Н., Маркин С.А. Руководство по практическому акушерству. М.: МИА; 1997. 424 с.
  4. Краснопольский В.И., Радзинский В.Е. Кесарево сечение. М.: Медицина; 2002. 296 с.
  5. Густоварова Т.А. Беременность и роды у женщин с рубцом на матке: клинико-морфологические и диагностические аспекты: Автореф. дис.. д-ра мед. наук. М.; 2007. 48 с.
  6. Basic E., Basic-Cetkovic V., Kozaric H., Rama A. Ultrasound evaluation of uterine scar after cesarean section. Acta Inform. Med. 2012; 20(3): 149-53.
  7. Caesarean section. Clinical quideline. April 2004. National collaborating centre for women’s and children’s health commissioned by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. London: RCOG Press; 2004: 18.
  8. Di Maio H., Edwards R.K., Euliano T.Y., Treloar R.W., Cruz A.C. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an historic cohort cost analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002; 186: 890-2.
  9. Blanchette H., Blanchette M., McCabe J., Vincent S. Is vaginal birth after cesarean safe? Experience at a community hospital. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001; 184: 1478-87.
  10. Bais J.M., Van der Borden D.M., Pel M., Bonsel G.J., Eskes M., Van der Slikke H.J., Bleker O.P. Vaginal birth after caesarean section in a population with a low overall caesarean section rate. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2001; 96(2): 158-62.
  11. Obara H., Minakami H., Koike T., Takamizawa S., Matsubara S., Sato I. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: results in 310 pregnancies. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res.1998; 24: 129-34.
  12. Bahtiyar M.O., Julien S., Robinson J.N., Lumey L., Zybert P., Copel J.A. et al. Prior cesarean delivery is not associated with an increased risk of stillbirth in a subsequent pregnancy: analysis of U.S. perinatal mortality data, 1995-1997. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 195(5): 1373-8.
  13. Rageth J.C., Juzi C., Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous cesarean: a risk evaluation. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999; 93: 332-7.
  14. Guise J.M., Eden K., Emeis C., Denman M.A., Marshall N., Fu R.R. et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. 2010; 191: 1-397.
  15. Hibbard J.U., Ismail M.A., Wang Y., Te C., Karrison T. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001; 184(7): 1365-71; discussion 1371-3.
  16. Пекарев О.Г., Майбородин И.В., Поздняков И.Н., Моторина Ю.П., Альхимович В.А. Прогноз и перспективы самопроизвольного родоразрешения у женщин с рубцом на матке после кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2007; 3: 33-7.
  17. Tahseen S., Griffiths M. Vaginal birth after two caesarean section [VBAC-2] - a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat [third] caesarean section. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2010; 117(1): 5-19.
  18. Краснопольский В.И., Логутова Л.С., Петрухин В.А., Буянова С.Н., Попов А.А., Чечнева М.А. и др. Место абдоминального и влагалищного оперативного родоразрешения в современном акушерстве. Реальность и перспективы. Акушерство и гинекология. 2012; 1: 4-8.
  19. Габидуллина Р.И. Новые возможности в диагностики состояния рубца на матке. Казанский медицинский журнал. 2002; 83(1): 4-7.
  20. Демидов В.Н. Ультразвуковая оценка состояния рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Пренатальная диагностика. 2009; 4: 291-7.
  21. Popov I. The ultrasonic assessment of the cicatrix after a past cesarean section. Akush. Ginekol. (Sofiia). 1994; 33(2): 10-2.
  22. Koutsougeras G., Karamanidis D., Chimonis G., Gottas N., Polydorou A., Elmazis C. et al. Evaluation during early puerperium of the low transverse incision after cesarean section through vaginal ultrasonography. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 30: 245-7.
  23. Dosedla E., Kvasnička T., Calda P. Ultrasonography of the uterus within 6 weeks following Cesarean section. Cent. Eur. J. Med. 2012; 7(2): 235-40.
  24. Hamar B.D., Shelley B. Ultrasound Evaluation of the Uterine Scar After Cesarean Delivery A Randomized Controlled Trial of One- and Two-Layer Closure. Am J Obstet Gynecol Vol. 110, № 4, 2007.
  25. Mulic-Lutvica A., Axelsson O. Labor and puerperium. In: Kurjak A., Chervenak F.A., eds. Texbook of perinatal medicine. 2nd eds. London: Informa; 2006; vol.1: ch.36.
  26. Стрижаков А.Н., Баев О.Р. Трансвагинальня ультразвуковая диагностика осложнений кесарево сечения. В кн.: Стрижаков А.Н., ред. Клиническая трансвагинальная эхография. М.: Медицина; 1999: 260-77.
  27. Woo G.M., Twikler D.M., Stettler R.W., Erdman W.A., Brown C.E. The pelvis after cesarean section and vaginal delivery: normal MR findings. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1993; 161: 1249-52.
  28. Bai J., Xu W., Yang Q. The monitoring of post cesarean section uterine scal with B-ultrasonographic and clinical detections. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 1997; 32(4): 195-7.
  29. Osser O.V., Jokubkiene L., Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 34(1): 90-7.
  30. Armstrong V., Hansen W.F., Van Voorhis B.J., Syrop C.H. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003; 101: 61-5.
  31. Wound healing, chronic wounds. http://www.emedicine. com/plastic/topic477.htm [Accessed 5 January 2007
  32. Surapaneni K., Silberzweig J.E. Cesarean section scar diverticulum: appearance on hysterosalpingography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008; 190(4): 870-4.
  33. Morris H. Surgical pathology of the lower uterine segment caesarean section scar: is the scar a source of clinical symptoms? Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 1995; 14(1): 16-20.
  34. 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; 61(4): 216-22.
  35. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Technology Assessment in Obstetrics and Gynecology No. 5: sonohysterography. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 112: 1467.
  36. 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; 23(3): 289-92.
  37. Monteagudo A., Carreno C., Timor-Tritsch I.E. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous Cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar. J. Ultrasound Med. 2001; 20: 1105-15.
  38. Roberge S., Boutin A., Chaillet N., Moore L., Jastrow N., Demers S., Bujold E. Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am. J. Perinatol. 2012; 29(6): 465-71. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1304829.
  39. Twickler D.M., Setiawan A.T., Harrell R.S., Brown C.E. CT Appearance of the pelvis after cesarean section. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1991; 156(3): 523-6.
  40. Maldjian C., Milestone B., Schnall M., Smith R. MR appearance of uterine dehiscence in the post-cesarean section patient. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1998; 22: 738-41.
  41. Malvasi A., Tinelli A., Tinelli R., Rahimi S., Resta L., Tinelli F.G. The post-cesarean section symptomatic bladder flap hematoma: a modern reappraisal. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007; 20(10): 709-14
  42. Murphy W.D., Feiglin D.H., Cisar C.C., al-Malt A.M., Bellon E.M. Magnetic resonance imaging of a third trimester abdominal pregnancy. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 1990; 8(5): 657-9.
  43. Dicle O., Küçükler C., Pirnar T., Erata Y., Posaci C. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur. Radiol. 1997; 7(1): 31-4.
  44. Maldjian C., Adam R., Maldjian J., Smith R. MRI appearance of the pelvis in the post cesarean-section patient. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 1999; 17: 223-7.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
##common.cookie##