Standardized examination of postoperative uterine scar
- Authors: Gus A.I.1, Yarygina T.A.2, Mishieva A.A.1, Voevodina V.I.1, Shmakov R.G.1
-
Affiliations:
- Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
- A.N. Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
- Issue: No 1 (2022)
- Pages: 42-47
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/274196
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.1.42-47
- ID: 274196
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
This publication reviews the internatonal guidelines approved in 2019 on the standards for ultrasound examination of the postoperative uterine scar, by taking into account the Delphi system for harmonizing the opinions of leading world experts. The importance of unifying the methodology of an investigation and the terminology for describing the ultrasound image is due to the global trend of an increase in the rate of cesarean section and related postoperative and longterm complications. Numerous studies of myometrial scar defect at cesarean section have confirmed its role in the development of abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, and complications in subsequent pregnancies, including scar ectopic pregnancy and abnormal placental invasion. In turn, organ-sparing surgeries for placenta increta lead to an increase in the number of patients with multiple areas of myometrial cicatricial changes, the long-term consequences of which have not yet been studied. This publication describes in detail the methodological aspects of both the standard ultrasound examination and echo contrast technology and sets out the definitions and concepts of echographic criteria to define the niche, the thickness of the residual and adjacent myometrium. It presents the sampling protocol for transvaginal ultrasound examination of a postoperative scar area, which can be used for all groups of patients who have undergone cesarean section, including cases of organ-sparing surgeries for placenta increta. Conclusion: The daily clinical introduction of a standardized approach to assessing the postoperative uterine scar and describing pathological changes in its area will be able to reach interdisciplinary and clinical consensus, to expand the possibilities of monitoring ongoing studies, to obtain evidence-based information on the correlation of ultrasound and clinical patterns, thereby contributing to improving the quality of medical care.
Full Text
About the authors
Alexandr I. Gus
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Ministry of Health of the Russian FederationDr. Med. Sci., Professor, Chief Researcher of Ultrasound and Functional Diagnostics Department, Radiology Division 117997, Russia, Moscow, Oparina str., 4
Tamara A. Yarygina
A.N. Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Email: tamarayarygina@gmail.com
MD, PhD, Specialist of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Perinatal Cardiology Center, Researcher 121552, Russia, Moscow, Roublyevskoe Shosse, 135
Alexandra A. Mishieva
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Email: shuratora@mail.ru
PhD Student 117997, Russia, Moscow, Oparina str., 4
Vlada I. Voevodina
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Email: vladavoevodina@yandex.ru
PhD Student 117997, Russia, Moscow, Oparina str., 4
Roman G. Shmakov
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Email: r_shmakov@oparina4.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Director of Institute of Obstetrics 117997, Russia, Moscow, Oparina str., 4
References
- Nagy S., Papp Z. Global approach of the cesarean section rates. J. Perinat. Med. 2020; 49(1): /1-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2020-0463.
- Blondon M., Casini A., Hoppe K.K., Boehlen F., Righini M., Smith N.L. Risks of venous thromboembolism after cesarean sections: a meta-analysis. Chest. 2016; 150(3): 572-96. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.021.
- de la Cruz C.Z., Thompson E.L., O’Rourke K., Nembhard W.N. Cesarean section and the risk of emergency peripartum hysterectomy in high-income countries: a systematic review. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015; 292(6): 1201-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3790-2.
- Sheikh M.S., Nelson G., Wood S.L., Metcalfe A. Surgical errors and complications following cesarean delivery in the United States. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM. 2020; 2(1): 100071. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.100071.
- Keag O.E., Norman J.E., Stock S.J. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(1): e1002494. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494.
- Кабатин Н.А., Калинин В.В., Щерина А.В., Полонецкий А.Я., Смирнов А.В. Синдром Огилви как редкое хирургическое осложнение после операции кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 5: 199-203. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.5.199-203.
- Kainu J.P., Halmesmäki E., Korttila K.T., Sarvela P.J. Persistent pain after cesarean delivery and vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study. Anesth. Analg. 2016; 123(6): 1535-45. https://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001619.
- Малышева А.А., Матухин В.И., Рухляда Н.Н., Тайц А.Н., Новицкая Н.Ю. Истонченный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: оценка факторов риска. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 2: 77-83. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.2.77-83.
- Glavind J., Madsen L.D., Uldbjerg N., Dueholm M. Cesarean section scar measurements in non-pregnant women using three-dimensional ultrasound: a repeatability study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 201: 65-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.03.019.
- Baranov A., Gunnarsson G., Salvesen K.A., Isberg P.E., Vikhareva O. Assessment of Cesarean hysterotomy scar in non-pregnant women: reliability of transvaginal sonography with and without contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 47(4): 499-505. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.14833.
- Fiocchi F., Petrella E., Nocetti L., Curra S., Ligabue G., Costi T. et al. Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of uterine scar after previous caesarean section: comparison with 3T-magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging. Radiol. Med. 2015; 120(2): 228-38. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0431-y.
- van der Voet L.L.F., Limperg T., Veersema S., Timmermans A., Bij de Vaate A.M.J., Brolmann H.A.M., Huirne J.A.F. Niches after cesarean section in a population seeking hysteroscopic sterilization. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2017; 214: 104-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.05.004.
- Alalfy M., Osman O.M., Salama S., Lasheen Y., Soliman M., Fikry M. et al. Evaluation of the cesarean scar niche in women with secondary infertility undergoing ICSI using 2D sonohysterography versus 3D sonohysterography and setting a standard criteria; alalfy simple rules for scar assessment by ultrasound to prevent health problems for women.Int. J. Womens Health. 2020; 12: 965-74. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S267691.
- Zhou X., Zhang T., Qiao H., Zhang Y., Wang X. Evaluation of uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound in 607 nonpregnant women with a history of cesarean section. BMC Womens Health. 2021; 21(1): 199. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01337-x.
- Коган О.М., Войтенко Н.Б., Зосимова Е.А., Мартынова Э.Н., Нерсесян Д.М., Бубникович А.А. Алгоритм ведения пациенток с несостоятельностью послеоперационного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Клиническая практика. 2018; 9(3): 38-43.
- De Mucio B., Serruya S., Aleman A., Castellano G., Sosa C.G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cesarean delivery and other uterine surgery as risk factors for placenta accreta.Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2019; 147(3): 281-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12948.
- Земскова Н.Ю., Чечнева М.А., Петрухин В.А., Лукашенко С.Ю. Ультразвуковое исследование рубца на матке после кесарева сечения в прогнозе исхода беременности. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 10: 99-104. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.10.99-104.
- Гус А.И., Бойкова Ю.В., Ярыгина Т.А., Яроцкая Е.Л. Современные подходы к пренатальной диагностике и скринингу врастания плаценты (обзор рекомендаций). Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 10: 5-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.10.5-12.
- Шмаков Р.Г., Пирогова М.М., Васильченко О.Н., Чупрынин В.Д., Пырегов А.В., Ходжаева З.С., Клименченко Н.И., Федорова Т.А., Ежова Л.С., Быченко В.Г., Бойкова Ю.В. Органосохраняющие операции при аномальной инвазии плаценты (5-летний опыт Национального медицинского исследовательского центра акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии имени академика В.И. Кулакова). Доктор.Ру. 2019; 11: 29-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2019-166-11-29-34.
- Курцер М.А., Бреслав И.Ю., Григорьян А.М., Латышкевич О.А., Кутакова Ю.Ю., Кондратьева М.А. Временная баллонная окклюзия общих подвздошных артерий при осуществлении органосохраняющих операций у пациенток с врастанием плаценты. Акушерство и гинекология: новости, мнения, обучение. 2018; 6(4): 31-7.
- Шмаков Р.Г., Пирогова М.М., Васильченко О.Н., Чупрынин В.Д., Ежова Л.С. Хирургическая тактика при врастании плаценты с различной глубиной инвазии. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 1: 78-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.1.
- Мартынов С.А., Адамян Л.В. Рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: терминологические аспекты. Гинекология. 2020; 22(5): 70-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.26442/20795696.2020.5.200415.
- van der Voet L.F., Jordans I.P.M., Brölmann H.A.M., Veersema S., Huirne J.A.F. Changes in the uterine scar during the first year after a Caesarean section: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2018; 83(2): 164-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000478046.
- Jordans I.P.M., De Leeuw R.A., Stegwee S.I., Amso N.N., Barri-Soldevila P.N., Van Den Bosch T., Huirne J.A.F. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 53(1): 107-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.19049.
- Макиян З.Н., Адамян Л.В., Карабач В.В., Чупрынин В.Д. Новый метод хирургического лечения несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения с помощью внутриматочного манипулятора с желобом. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 2: 104-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110.
- Naji O., Abdallah Y., Bij De Vaate A.J., Smith A., Pexsters A., Stalder C. et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 39(3): 252-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.10077.
- Hsu C., Sandford B.A. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. PARE: Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. 2007; 12(10): 1-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90.
Supplementary files
