CLINICAL PRACTICE OF USING T. VEJNOVIC TECHNIQUE FOR SUTURE OF THE UTERUS AFTER CAESARIAN SECTION


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective. To improve the outcomes of cesarean section using T. Vejnovic technique for suturing of the uterus after caesarean section. Materials and methods. The study included 220 women who underwent caesarean section to deliver their babies. They were divided into 3 groups: group 1 - the patients who had ceasarean section with the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique; group 2 - the patients who had ceasarean section with M. Stark modified technique based on the Joel-Cohen incision; group 3 - the patients who had ceasarean section with M. Stark technique based on the Joel-Cohen incision, using T. Vejnovic modified uterine suture technique. Intraoperative blood loss, operative duration, early postoperaive complications, the presence of an isthmocele 6 months after surgery and residual myometrial thickness were assessed. Results. The lowest rate of isthmocele formation was 9% (n=5) in group 3, where T.Vejnovic technique was used to restore the uterine wall integrity. The myometrium thickness of 7.9 (0.25) mm in the area of postoperative scar after previous cesarean section was significantly larger compared to group 1 5.6 (1.94) mm (p=0,01), and group 2: 4.7(2.37) mm (p=0.005). Conclusion. To preserve the normal thickness of uterine walls during cesarean section, T. Vejnovic modified uterine suture technique proved to be more effective compared to single-row and double-row suturing with no statistically significant differences in reduction in the incidence of isthmocele (niche).

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Nikolay A. KABATIN

Borsky Central City Hospital

Email: onlybones@yandex.ru
Ph.D., obstetrician-gynecologist of the Department of Obstetrics, Perinatal Center Nizhny Novgorod region, Bor, Russia

Vitalii V. KALININ

Borsky Central City Hospital

Email: vikalinin77@mail.ru
Ph.D., Head of the Department of Obstetrics, Perinatal Center Nizhny Novgorod region, Bor, Russia

Anna L. SOROKINA

Borsky Central City Hospital

Email: perenat@crb-bor.ru
Head of Perinatal Center Nizhny Novgorod region, Bor, Russia

References

  1. Betrân A.P., Ye J., Moller A.B., Zhang J., Gülmezoglu A.M., Torloni M.R. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2): e0148343. https://dx.doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343.
  2. Bij de Vaate A.J., Van der Voet L.F., Naji O., Witmer M., Veersema S., Brölmann H.A. 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. 2014; 43(4): 372-82. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.13199.
  3. Regnard C., Nosbusch M., Fellmans C., Benali N., van Rysselberghe M., Barlow P. et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 23(3): 289-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00404-018-4702-z.
  4. Antila-Längsjö R., Mäenpää J.U., Huhtala H., Tomâs E., Staff S. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2018; 97(9): 1130-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ aogs.13367.
  5. Приходько А.М., Баев О.Р., Луньков С.С., Еремина О.В., Гус А.И. Возможности методов оценки состояния стенки матки после операции кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2013; 10: 12-6.
  6. Ofili-Yebovi D., Ben-Nagi J., Sawyer E., Yazbek J., Lee C., Gonzalez J. et al. Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 31(1): 72-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ uog.5200.
  7. 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): 90-1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6395.
  8. Marotta M.L., Donnez J., Squifflet J., Jadoul P., Darii N., Donnez O. Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine scar defects diagnosed in nonpregnant women. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(3): 386-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.12.006.
  9. Futyma K., Gafozynski K., Romanek K., Filipczak A., Rechberger T. When and how should we treat cesarean scar defect - isthmocoele? Ginekol. Pol. 2016; 87(9): 664. https://dx.doi.org/10.5603/GP.2016.0063.
  10. Tulandi T., Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(6): 893-902. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.020.
  11. Van der Voet L.F., Bij de Vaate A.M., Veersema S., Brölmann H.A., Huirne J.A. 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. 2014; 121(2): 236-44. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1471-0528.12542.
  12. Bij de Vaate A.J., Brölmann H.A., van der Voet L.F., van der Slikke J.W., Veersema S., Huirne J.A. Ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 37(1): 93-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.8864.
  13. Wang C.B., Chiu ЖЖ, Lee C.Y., Sun Y.L., Lin Y.H., Tseng C.J. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 34(1): 85-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6405.
  14. Florio P., Filippeschi M., Moncini I., Marra E., Franchini M., Gubbini G. Hysteroscopic treatment of the cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring infertility. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 24(3): 180-6. https://dx.doi. org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283521202.
  15. Gubbini G., Centini G., Nascetti D., Marra E., Moncini I., Bruni L. et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2011; 18(2): 234-7. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.011.
  16. Park I., Kim M., Lee H., Gen Y., Kim M. Risk factors for Korean women to develop an isthmocele after a cesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1): 162. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1821-2.
  17. Di Spiezio Sardo A., Saccone G., McCurdy R., Bujold E., Bifulco G., Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 50(5): 578-83. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002 /uog.17401.
  18. Yazicioglu F., Gökdogan A., Kelekci S., Aygün M., Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2006; 124(1): 32-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ejogrb.2005.03.023.
  19. Roberge S., Bujold E. Closure of uterus and the risk of uterine rupture. BJOG. 2014; 122(11): 1542. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13095.
  20. Turan C., Büyükbayrak E.E., Yilmaz A.O., Karsidag Y.K., Pirimoglu M. Purse-string double-layer closure: A novel technique for repairing the uterine incision during cesarean section. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2014; 41(4): 565-74. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.12593.
  21. Vejnovic T.R. Cesarean delivery - Vejnovic modification. Srp. Arh. Celok. Lek. 2008; 136(Suppl. 2): 109-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/sarh08s2109v.
  22. Furau C., Furau G., Dascau V., Ciobanu G., Onel C., Stanescu C. Improvements in cesarean section techniques: Arad's obstetrics department experience on adapting the Vejnovic cesarean section technique. Maedica (Buchar). 2013; 8(3): 256-60.
  23. Vejnovic T.R., Costa S.D., Ignatov A. New technique for caesarean section. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2012; 72(9): 840-5. https://dx.doi. org/10.1055/s-0032-1315347.
  24. Vejnovie T., Vejnovie A. New technique in obstetrics: Vejnovic modification of caesarean section. Is there an impact on the frequency of placenta increta/ percreta? Jatros. Medizin fur die Frau. 2016; 3/16: 26-9. Available at: http:// ch.universimed.com/files/grafik/Zeitungen_2016/Frau_1603/e-papers/index. html#26/z52
  25. Dahlke J.D., Mendez-Figueroa H., Rouse D.J., Berghella V., Baxter J.K., Chauhan S.P. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 209(4): 294-306. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.12.063.
  26. Naji O., Wynants L., Smith A., Abdallah Y., Stalder C., Sayasneh A. et al. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 41(6): 672-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.12423.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2021 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies