Ultrasound examination of the cesarean scar in the prognosis of pregnancy outcome


Cite item

Full Text

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

Abstract

Objective. To study the state and time of thinning of uterine scars after cesarean section (CS) in pregnant women using ultrasound monitoring. Materials and methods. The study included 148 pregnant women at periods of 6-12, 13-20, 21-29, 30-36 and 37-40 weeks gestation; the patients were divided into groups based on the initial thickness of the residual myometrium in the scar area; pregnancy outcomes were studied. Results. Patients in group A whose residual myometrium was more than 3 mm had a late (by 37 weeks) and gradual (on average, 1 mm per trimester) thinning of the scar. The outcomes were a full-term pregnancy in 89.1% of patients, and preterm delivery at 30-36 weeks in 10.9% of cases (vaginal delivery in 17.2%, CS in 82% of cases). Patients of group B whose residual myometrium was 2-3 mm had a full-term pregnancy in 84.6% of cases, preterm delivery at 30-36 weeks in 15.4% (CS in 92.3%; CS and hysterectomy in 7.3% of cases). Pregnant women in group C had residual myometrium less than 2 mm, and its thickness was less than 1 mm in 45.7% of them at 26 weeks of gestation. Patients in this group had a high incidence of placenta previa and placenta increta (11.3%) and adverse outcomes (full-term pregnancy in 31.4%, preterm delivery at 30-36 weeks in 31.4%, preterm delivery at 22-29 weeks in 11.4% of cases). CS was performed in 57.7%, CS and metroplasty were done in 8.5%, CS and hysterectomy were performed in 5.65% of cases. Preterm delivery at 22 weeks was noted in 28.1% of cases (metroplasty - 22.5%, hysterectomy - 5.65%). Conclusion. Pregnant women whose residual myometrium is 1 mm thick or less in the period up to 26 weeks gestation are an extremely high-risk group and require special monitoring (it is recommended to perform ultrasonography at 12, 18, 22, and 26 weeks gestation).

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Nadezhda Yu. Zemskova

Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Email: fluimucil@yandex.ru
Junior Researcher, Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics

Marina A. Chechneva

Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Email: marina-chechneva@yandex.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Head of the Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics

Vasiliy A. Petrukhin

Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Email: petruhin27l058@mail.ru
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor

Svetlana Yu. Lukashenko

Scientific Research Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: s_lukashenko@mail.ru
engineer, PhD of physical and mathematical sciences

References

  1. Сухих Г.Т., Донников А.Е., Кесова М.И., Кан Н.Е., Амирасланов Э.Ю., Климанцев И.В., Санникова М.В., Ломова Н.А., Сергунина О.А., Демура Т.А., Коган Е.А., Абрамов Д.Д., Кадочникова В.В., Трофимов Д.Ю. Оценка состояния рубца матки с помощью математического моделирования на основании клинических и молекулярно-генетических предикторов. Акушерство и гинекология. 2013; 1: 33-9. [Sukhikh G.T. Donnikov A.E., Kesova M.I., Kan N.E., Amiraslanov E.Yu., Klimantsev I.V. et al. Assessment of the state of the uterine scar using mathematical modeling based on clinical and molecular genetic predictors. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 1: 33-9. (in Russian)].
  2. Краснопольский В.И., ред. Кесарево сечение. Проблемы абдоминального акушерства. Руководство для врачей. 3-е изд. М.: СИМК; 2018. [Cesarean section. Problems of Abdominal Obstetrics: A Guideline for Physicians. Ed. Academician of the RAS V.I. Krasnopolsky. 3rd ed., Revised. and add. M.: Special publishing house of medical books (SIMK); 2018. (in Russian).
  3. Щукина Н.А., Буянова С.Н., Чечнева М.А., Земскова Н.Ю., Баринова И.В., Пучкова Н.В., Благина Е.И. Основные причины формирования несостоятельного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2018; 18(4): 57-61.
  4. Сухих Г.Т., Коган Е.А., Кесова М.И., Демура Т.А., Донников А.Е., Мартынов А.И., Трофимов Д.Ю.,Климанцев И.В., Санникова М.В.,КанН.Е., Костин П.А., Орджоникидзе Н.В., Амирасланов Э.Ю. Морфологические и молекулярно-генетические особенности неоангиогенеза в рубце матки у пациенток с недифференцированной дисплазией соединительной ткани. Акушерство и гинекология. 2010; 6: 23-7.
  5. Schaap T., Bloemenkamp K., Deneux-Tharaux C., Knight M., Langhoff-Roos J., Sullivan E. et al. Defining definitions: a Delphi study todevelop a core outcome set for conditions of severe maternalmorbidity. BJOG. 2019; 126(3): 394-401. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14833.
  6. Thurn L., Lindqvist P.G., Jakobsson M., Colmorn L.B., Klungsoyr K., Bjarnadottir R.I. et al. Abnormally invasive placenta-prevalence, riskfactors and antenatal suspicion: results from a large population-based pregnancy cohort study in the Nordic countries. BJOG. 2016; 123(8): 1348-55. https://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1471-0528.13547.
  7. Van der Voet L.F., Jordans I.P.M., Brolmann 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.
  8. Серов В.Н., Сухих Г.Т., ред. Клинические рекомендации. Акушерство и гинекология. 4-е изд. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2014. 1024с. [Serov V.N., Sukhikh G.T., ed. Clinical recommendations. Obstetrics and gynecology. 4th ed., Revised. and add. M.: GEOTAR-Media; 2014. 1024 p. (in Russian)].
  9. Osser O.V., Jokubkiene L., Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 35(1): 75-83. https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/uog.7496.
  10. Буянова С.Н., Пучкова Н.В. Несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика, тактика ведения, репродуктивный прогноз. Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2011; 11(4): 36-8. [Buyanova S.N., Puchkova N.V. Insufficient cesarean scar: diagnosis, management tactics, reproductive prognosis. Russian Bulletin of the Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2011; 11(4): 36-8. (in Russian)].
  11. Краснопольская К.В., Попов А.А., Чечнева М.А., Федоров А.А., Ершова И.Ю. Прегравидарная метропластика по поводу несостоятельного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: влияние на естественную фертильность и результаты ЭКО. Проблемы репродукции. 2015; 21(3): 56-62. [Krasnopolskaya K.V., Popov A.A., Chechneva M.A., Fedorov A.A., Ershova I.Yu. Pregravid metroplasty for insolvent uterine scar after cesarean section: effects on natural fertility and IVF results. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2015; 21(3): 56-62. (in Russian)].
  12. Chen J., Cui H., Na Q., Zi Q., Zui C. Analysis of emergency obstetric hysterectomy: the change of indications and the application of intraoperative interventions. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2015; 50(3): 177-82.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2020 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies