КЛИНИЧЕСКИЙ ОПЫТ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЯ МЕТОДИКИ T. VEJNOVIC ПРИ УШИВАНИИ МАТКИ ПОСЛЕ КЕСАРЕВА СЕЧЕНИЯ
- Авторы: КАБАТИН Н.А.1, КАЛИНИН В.В.1, СОРОКИНА А.Л.1
-
Учреждения:
- ГБУЗ НО «Борская центральная районная больница»
- Выпуск: № 1 (2021)
- Страницы: 88-93
- Раздел: Статьи
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/249213
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.L88-93
- ID: 249213
Цитировать
Полный текст
Доступ предоставлен
Доступ платный или только для подписчиков
Аннотация
Ключевые слова
Полный текст
Об авторах
Николай Алексеевич КАБАТИН
ГБУЗ НО «Борская центральная районная больница»
Email: onlybones@yandex.ru
к.м.н., врач акушер-гинеколог акушерского отделения перинатального центра Нижегородская область, Бор, Россия
Виталий Владимирович КАЛИНИН
ГБУЗ НО «Борская центральная районная больница»
Email: vikalinin77@mail.ru
к.м.н., заведующий акушерским отделением перинатального центра, врач акушер-гинеколог Нижегородская область, Бор, Россия
Анна Львовна СОРОКИНА
ГБУЗ НО «Борская центральная районная больница»
Email: perenat@crb-bor.ru
заведующая перинатальным центром, врач акушер-гинеколог Нижегородская область, Бор, Россия
Список литературы
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Vejnovic T.R. Cesarean delivery - Vejnovic modification. Srp. Arh. Celok. Lek. 2008; 136(Suppl. 2): 109-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/sarh08s2109v.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.