Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: General obstetrics

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 117, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1119-1126

  Vikhareva Osser, O ^a   Valentin, L ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

caesarean scar defect; caesarean section; ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

OXYTOCIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SCAR DEFECT; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCISION; LABOR INDUCTION; LABOR ONSET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PELVIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SCAR; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; UTERINE CERVIX DILATATION; UTERUS; UTERUS CONTRACTION; WOUND HEALING; CICATRIX; ECHOGRAPHY; LABOR STAGE 1; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LABOR STAGE, FIRST; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS; UTERUS; WOUND HEALING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954396592     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02631.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007 21 : 98 113.
2. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol 2008 35 : 293 307.
3. Kolås T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Henriksen T, Häger R, et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003 188 : 864 870.
4. Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2007 114 : 253 263.
5. Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Salim R, Elson CJ. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003 21 : 220 227.
6. Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu HM, Ananth CV. Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption. Obstet Gynecol 2006 107 : 771 778.
7. Ben Nagi J, Ofili-Yebovi D, Marsh M, Jurkovic D. First-trimester cesarean scar pregnancy evolving into placenta previa/accreta at term. J Ultrasound Med 2005 24 : 1569 1573.
8. Diaz SD, Jones JE, Seryakov M, Mann WJ. Uterine rupture and dehiscence: ten-year review and case-control study. South Med J 2002 95 : 431 435.
9. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004 23 : 289 292.
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 : 72 7.
11. Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 2003 101 : 61 5.
12. Vikhareva Osser O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009 34 : 90 7.
13. Vikhareva Osser O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010 35 : 75 83.
14. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996 347 : 281 284.
15. Persson PH, Weldner BM. Reliability of ultrasound fetometry in estimating gestational age in the second trimester. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986 65 : 481 483.
16. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Management of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. RCOG Guideline No.10 (A), March 2006. [ http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/ GT10aManagementPreeclampsia 2006.pdf] Accessed 10 September 2009.
17. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, Suzuki M, Tamakoshi K, et al. Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006 85 : 429 434.
18. Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2007 110 : 808 813.
19. 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 : 32 6.
20. Häger RM, Daltveit AK, Hofoss D, Nilsen ST, Kolaas T, Øian P, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 190 : 428 434.
21. Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Yu C, Wang H, Sharer DJ, Diamond MP, et al. The effect of dystocia and previous cesarean uterine scar on the tensile properties of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006 194 : 873 883.
22. Zimmer EZ, Bardin R, Tamir A, Bronshtein M. Sonographic imaging of cervical scars after Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004 23 : 594 598.
23. Schugart RC, Friedman A, Zhao R, Sen CK. Wound angiogenesis as a function of tissue oxygen tension: a mathematical model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008 105 : 2628 2633.
24. Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G, Suzuki S, Araki T. Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labor: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nippon Med Sch 2000 67 : 352 356.