Uterine scar dehiscence following caesarean section


Cite item

Full Text

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

Abstract

Objective: To investigate p/egnancy outcomes in patients with uterine sca/ dehiscence (lowe/ uterine segment thickness 41-1.2 mm) and analyze the pathomo/phological findings of the dissected sca/. Materials and methods: In this study, a /et/ospective analysis was conducted of 80 delive/y notes of patients with uterine sca/ dehiscence afte/ the lowe/ uterine segment cesa/ean section. Results: A history of one, two, and three cesarean sections had 54/80(67.5%), 23/80 (28.7%), and 3/80 (3.8%) patients with uterine scars dehiscence, respectively. The indication for elective surgical delivery in 60/80 (75%) was a scar thickness < 1-1.2 mm when evaluated by ultrasound. The onset of uterine contractions was an indication for delivery in 20/80 (25%) patients. At the time of delivery, the gestational age was 38 (38;39) weeks, and the uterine aneurysms were diagnosed at 37 (37;38) weeks. In 16/80 (20%) pregnant women, aneurysms were detected before 37 weeks, with the earliest diagnosis at 21 weeks. Pregnancies resulted in singletons in 79/80 (98.8%) and a twin in 1/80 (1.2%) women. Among singleton pregnant women, 10/79 (12.7%) gave birth to large babies. Histological examination revealed scar thinning to 1 mm, myometrium replacement by connective tissue > 50% in 63/80 (78.8%) patients. Splitting hemorrhages in the scar were found in 33/80 (41.3%). Conclusion: Post cesarean uterine scar dehiscence detected by ultrasound in asymptomatic pregnant women should be managed conservatively. Prolongation of pregnancy beyond 38-39 weeks is inappropriate because it is associated with a potential increase in fetal weight, a predictor of bleeding in the thinned scar caused by excessive stretching.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Mark A. Kurtser

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: m.kurtser@mcclinics.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Academician of the RAS, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatric Faculty

Irina Yu. Breslav

MD GROUP Clinical Hospital, MD PROJECT 2000

Email: irina_breslav@mail.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Head of the Department of Pathology of Pregnancy

Olga P. Barykina

MD GROUP Clinical Hospital, MD PROJECT 2000

Email: medsbvar@mail.ru
Pathologist, Head of the Department of Anatomic Pathology

Nikolay V. Skryabin

MD GROUP Clinical Hospital, MD PROJECT 2000

Email: hranitelkr@mail.ru
Pathologist at the Department of Anatomic Pathology

Elina R. Nigmatullina

MD GROUP Clinical Hospital, MD PROJECT 2000; Bashkir State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: elinanig@mail.ru
Obstetrician-Gynecologist at the MD GROUP Clinical Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Faculty of General Medicine

References

  1. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod. Health Matters. 2015; 23(45): 149-50. https://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007.
  2. Основные показатели деятельности акушерско-гинекологической службы в Российской Федерации в 2020 году. Министерство здравоохранения Российской Федерации. Департамент медицинской помощи детям и службы родовспоможения. М.; 2021.
  3. Савельева Г.М., Курцер М.А. Бреслав И.Ю., Караганова Е.Я., Неклюдова Ю.Г. Непроникающий разрыв матки по рубцу после кесарева сечения и расползание/аневризма рубца на матке во второй половине беременности и в родах. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 6: 66-72. [Savelyeva G.M., Kurtser M.A. Breslav I.Yu., Karaganova E.Ya., Neklyudova Yu.G. Nonpenetrating rupture of the uterus along the scar after cesarean section and creeping/ aneurysm of the scar on the uterus in the second half of pregnancy and childbirth. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021; 6: 66-72. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.202L6.66-72.
  4. Письмо Министерства здравоохранения и социального развития РФ от 24 июня 2011 г. №15-4/10/2-6139 «Кесарево сечение в современном акушерстве».
  5. Российское общество акушеров-гинекологов. Клинические рекомендации «Послеоперационный рубец на матке, требующий предоставления медицинской помощи матери во время беременности, родов и в послеродовом периоде». 2021.
  6. Малышева А.А., Матухин В.И., Рухляда Н.Н., Тайц А.Н., Новицкая Н.Ю. Факторы риска дефекта рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 2: 77-83. [Malysheva A.A., Matukhin V.I., Rukhlyada N.N., Taits A.N., Novitskaya N.Yu. Risk factors for cesarean uterine scar defect. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021; 2: 77-83 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.2.77-83.
  7. Gyokova E., Popov Y., Ivanova-Yoncheva Y., Georgiev A., Dimitrova M., Betova T. et al. Clinical-morphological evaluation of the quality of the uterine scar tissue after caesarean section. J. IMAB. 2019; 25(1): 2433-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2019251.2433.
  8. Balalau O., Bacalbasa N., Balalau C., Negrei C., Galateanu B., Ghinghina O. et al. The correlation between histopathological and ultrasound findings regarding Cesarean section scars - A three-year survey study. J. Mind Med. Sci. 2019; 6(1): 143-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.22543/7674.61.P143149.
  9. Савельева Г.М., Курцер М.А., Бреслав И.Ю. Разрыв матки. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2021.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2022 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies