Clinical and morphological variants of insufficient uterine scar after cesarean section

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат ақылы немесе тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация

Objective: To explore the morphological features and clinical manifestations of insufficient uterine scar after cesarean section.

Materials and methods: The study included 109 patients with uterine scar after cesarean section. They were divided into four groups depending on the clinical and morphological features of insufficient uterine scar: group I – “vascular”type (n=23), group II – “connective tissue” type (n=39); III – “inflammatory” type (n=27), and Group IV – the comparison group (n=20). Histological and histomorphological evaluation of excised scar tissue, clinical assessment of anamnestic indicators, and statistical data analysis were performed.

Results: Three main morphological variants of insufficient uterine scar were identified – "inflammatory," "vascular," and "connective tissue." The clinical and morphological parallels of insufficient uterine scar were assessed taking into account the histological variant. The patients with the "vascular" type of insufficient uterine scar had a history of irregular menstrual cycles (r=0.71; 95% CI 0.81;0.89 p<0.001). The main indication for delivery was the risk of uterine rupture along the scar (r=0.67; 95% CI 0.78;0.95 p<0.001). The patients with the "connective tissue" type of insufficient uterine scar underwent the first cesarean section due to abnormal labor (r=0.81; 95% CI 0.65;0.74 p<0.001). Uterine scar insufficiency – thinning of the uterine scar (< 2 mm) was detected by ultrasound. At the same time, the clinical picture showed no risk of uterine rupture along the scar (r=0.88; 95% CI 0.76;0.85 p<0.001). The "inflammatory type" of insufficient uterine scar correlated with recurrent miscarriage in history (r=0.65; 95% CI 0.58;0.83 p<0.001) and fetal distress in current pregnancy (r=0.63; 95% CI 0.61;0.81 p<0.001).

Conclusion: The obtained data indicate that there is a need for an in-depth study of the pathogenetic mechanisms of uterine scar formation and the development of a prediction model.

Толық мәтін

Рұқсат жабық

Авторлар туралы

Vitaly Nesterov

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Child Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: dr.nesterov2014@yandex.ru

PhD, Senior Researcher, Head of the Obstetric Department

Ресей, Yekaterinburg

Galina Malgina

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Child Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: galinamalgina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5500-6296

Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Scientific Secretary, Leading Researcher

Ресей, Yekaterinburg

Maria Dyakova

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Child Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: mariadakova40@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7911-6783

PhD, Junior Researcher

Ресей, Yekaterinburg

Anastasia Grishkina

Sverdlovsk Regional Bureau of Anatomical Pathology

Email: xumukyc.ru@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7433-2217

PhD, Pathologist, Head of the Department of Pediatric Pathology

Ресей, Yekaterinburg

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Савина Л.В., Ящук А.Г., Масленников А.В., Савин А.М., Шаяхметов А.М. Факторы риска формирования несостоятельности рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения. Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. 2022; 6(120): 107-12. [Savina L.V., Yashchuk A.G., Maslennikov A.V., Savin A.M., Shayahmetov A.M. Risk factors of uterus scar insolvency after a c-section operation. International Research Journal. 2022; 6(120): 107-12. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.120.6.050
  2. Глухов Е.Ю., Дикке Г.Б., Нефф Е.И., Глухова В.Е., Свяжина А.В. Хронический эндометрит и несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: отдаленные результаты метропластики. Акушерство и гинекология. 2019; 2: 126-34. [Glukhov E.Yu., Dikke G.B., Neff E.I., Glukhova V.E., Svyazhin A.V. Chronic endometritis and an incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section: long-term outcomes of metroplasty. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; (2): 126-34 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.2.126-134
  3. Савельева Г.М., Бреслав И.Ю. Разрыв оперированной матки во время беременности и родов. Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии 2015; 14(3): 22-7. [Savel'eva G.M., Breslav I.Yu. Rupture of the operated uterus during pregnancy and labour. Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology. 2015; 14(3): 22-7 (in Russian)].
  4. Щукина Н.А., Буянова С.Н., Чечнева М.А., Земскова Н.Ю. Основные причины формирования несостоятельного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2018; 4: 57-61. [Shchukina N.A., Buyanova S.N., Chechneva M.A., Zemskova N.Yu. Main reasons for the formation of an incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2018; 4: 57-61 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.17116/rosakush201818457
  5. Мудров В.А., Мочалова М.Н., Мудров А.А. Особенности родоразрешения беременных с рубцом на матке через естественные родовые пути на современном этапе. Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. 2018; 67(1): 26-37. [Mudrov V.A., Mochalova M.N., Mudrov A.A. Features of women’s vaginal delivery with uterine scar at present stage. Journal of Obstetrics and Women's Diseases. 2018; 67(1): 26-37 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.17816/JOWD67126-37
  6. Торобаева М.Т., Буянова С.Н., Пучкова Н.В. Несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения как отдельная нозология. Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2023; 23(3): 19-28. [Torobaeva M.T., Buyanova S.N., Puchkova N.V. Incompetent uterine scar after caesarean section as a separate nosology. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2023; 23(3): 19-28 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20232303119
  7. Ножницева О.Н., Семенов И.А., Беженарь В.Ф. Рубец на матке после операции кесарева сечения и оптимальный алгоритм диагностики его состояния. Лучевая диагностика и терапия. 2019; 2: 85-90. [Nozhnitseva O.N., Semenov I.A., Bezhenar V.F. The scar on the uterus after cesarean section and the optimal algorithm for diagnostics. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2019; 2: 85-90 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90
  8. Беляева Е.К., Старцева Н.М., Маркарян Н.М., Хамошина М.Б., Логинова Е.В., Михалева Л.М., Бирюков А.Е. Клинико-морфологические параллели состоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология: новости, мнения, обучение. 2024; 12 Спецвыпуск: 13-9. [Belyaeva E.K., Startseva N.M., Markaryan N.M., Khamoshina M.B., Loginova E.V., Mikhaleva L.M., Biryukov A.E. Clinical and morphological parallels of the consistency of the uterine scar after cesarean section. Obstetrics and Gynecology: News, Opinions, Training. 2024; 12 Supplement: 13-9 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.33029/2303-9698-2024-12-suppl-13-19
  9. Ewies A.A.A., Qadri S., Awasthi R., Zanetto U. Caesarean section operation is not associated with myometrial hypertrophy - a prospective cohort study. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022; 42(6): 2474-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2022.2074787
  10. 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
  11. Vink J., Feltovich H. Cervical etiology of spontaneous preterm birth. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 21(2): 106-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2015.12.009
  12. Игитова М.Б., Дмитриенко К.В., Боровков В.А., Нестеров Ю.Н. Клинико-морфологическое сопоставление течения гестации и состояния рубца на матке после однократного кесарева сечения. Фундаментальная и клиническая медицина. 2023; 8(3): 37-43. [Igitova M.B., Dmitrienko K.V., Borovkov V.A., Nesterov Yu.N. Clinicopathological features of gestation course associated with uterine scar dehiscence in women with a past medical history of a single caesarean section. Fundamental and Clinical Medicine. 2023; 8(3): 37-43 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.23946/2500-0764-2023-8-3-37-43
  13. Ильина И.Ю., Чикишева А.А. Особенности течения беременности у пациенток с дисплазией соединительной ткани. РМЖ. Мать и дитя. 2020; 3(3): 182-8. [Il’ina I.Yu., Chikisheva A.A. Course of the pregnancy in women with connective tissue disorders. RMJ. Mother and child. 2020; 3(3): 182-8 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.32364/2618-8430-2020-3-3-182-188
  14. Manuck T.A. The genomics of prematurity in an era of more precise clinical phenotyping: a review. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 21(2): 89-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2016.01.001
  15. Кан Н.Е., Тютюнник В.Л., Демура Т.А., Кесова М.И. Особенности формирования рубца на матке после кесарева сечения при недифференцированной дисплазии соединительной ткани. Акушерство и гинекология. 2015; 1: 93-7. [Kan N.E., Tyutyunnik V.L., Demura T.A., Kesova M.I. Specific features of uterine scar formation after cesarean section in undifferentiated connective tissue dysplasia. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015; (1): 93-7 (in Russian)].
  16. Гарифуллова Ю.В., Журавлева В.И. Пластика несостоятельного рубца на матке влагалищным доступом при сопутствующей дисплазии соединительной ткани. Практическая медицина. 2019; 17(4): 85-7. [Garifullova Yu.V., Zhuravleva V.I. Vaginal access repair of uterine scar dehiscence with concomitant connective tissue dysplasia. Practical medicine. 2019; 17(4): 85-7 (in Russian)]. https://doi.org/10.32000/2072-1757-2019-4-85-87
  17. Окулова Е.О., Михельсон А.А., Мелкозерова О.А., Телякова М.И., Чистякова Г.Н., Лазукина М.В. Эндометриоз несостоятельного рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения: воспаление или дисплазия? Проблемы репродукции. 2022; 28(4): 145-50. [Okulova E.O., Mikhelson A.A., Melkozerova O.A., Telyakova M.I., Chistyakova G.N., Lazukina M.V. Endometriosis of a post-cesarean incompetent of uterine scar: inflammatory or connective tissue dysplasia. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2022; 28(4): 145-50 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.17116/repro202228041145
  18. Краснопольский В.И., Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Логутова Л.С. Несостоятельность шва (рубца) на матке после кесарева сечения: проблемы и решения (редакционная статья). Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2015; 15(3): 4-8. [Krasnopol'skiĭ V.I., Buianova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Logutova L.S. Uterine suture (scar) incompetence after cesarean section: problems and solutions (an editorial). Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015; 15(3): 4-8. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20151534-8
  19. Sholapurkar S.L. Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (niche): detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2018; 10(3): 166-73. https://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3271w
  20. Pirtea L., Balint O., Secoşan C., Grigoraş D., Pirtea P. Case report: laparoscopic isthmocele repair on an 8 weeks pregnant uterus. Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2022; 9: 831588. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.831588
  21. Цхай В.Б., Леванович Е.В., Кельберг В.Г. Эндометриоз несостоятельного рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2016; 8: 119-23. [Tshai V.B., Levanovich E.V., Kelberg V.G. Endometriosis in an incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; (8): 119-23 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2016.8.119-123
  22. Телякова М.И., Михельсон А.А., Окулова Е.О., Мелкозерова О.А., Погорелко Д.В. Современные представления об эндометриозе несостоятельного рубца на матке после операции кесарево сечение. Лечение и профилактика. 2021; 11(1): 46-53. [Telyakova M.I., Mikhelson A.A., Okulova E.O., Melkozerova O.A., Pogorelko D.V. Inconsistency of the uterine scar after cesarean section in combination with endometriosis of the uterine scar. Treatment and prevention. 2021; 11(1): 46-53 (in Russian)].
  23. Gurbuz A.S., Gode F., Ozcimen N. Non-invasive isthmocele treatment: a new therapeutic option during assisted reproductive technology cycles? J. Clin. Med. Res. 2020; 12(5): 307-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4140

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу
2. Fig. 1. Macroscopic signs of uterine scar defects in patients of the examined subgroups (%)

Жүктеу (120KB)
Метадеректер
3. Fig. 2. A (100x magnification, hematoxylin eosin), B, C — “vascular” type of defective scar on the uterus

Жүктеу (356KB)
Метадеректер
4. Fig. 3. A (100x magnification, hematoxylin eosin), B – “connective tissue” type of scar on the uterus

Жүктеу (270KB)
Метадеректер
5. Fig. 4. A (100x magnification, hematoxylin eosin), B - "inflammatory" type of defective scar

Жүктеу (285KB)
Метадеректер

© Bionika Media, 2025