Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 252-259

  Naji, O ^a   Abdallah, Y ^a   Bij De Vaate, A J ^b   Smith, A ^a   Pexsters, A ^c   Stalder, C ^a   McIndoe, A ^a   Ghaem Maghami, S ^a   Lees, C ^d   Brolmann H A M ^b   Huirne, J A F ^b   Timmerman, D ^c   Bourne, T ^a,c  

^a QUEEN CHARLOTTE S AND CHELSEA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; deficiency; lower uterine segment; saline contrast sonohysterography; scar defect; uterine scar; vaginal ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE; REVIEW; SCAR; STANDARD; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; WOUND DEHISCENCE; WOUND HEALING;

CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 84863294866     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.10077     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygun M, Savan K,. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 124: 32-36. (Pubitemid 43020924)
2. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M,. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21: 98-113.
3. value Qa,. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement (London, UK). Case series 1. http://www.institute.nhs.uk/ [Accessed 1 March 2011].
4. Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, Rosenberg VA, Buhimschi IA, Buhimschi CS,. 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. (Pubitemid 47508744)
5. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J, Jurkovic D,. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 72-77. (Pubitemid 351211934)
6. Poidevin LO,. The value of hysterography in the prediction of cesarean section wound defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961; 81: 67-71.
7. Burger NF, Darazs B, Boes EG,. An echographic evaluation during the early puerperium of the uterine wound after caesarean section. J Clin Ultrasound 1982; 10: 271-274. (Pubitemid 12045159)
8. Chen HY, Chen SJ, Hsieh FJ,. Observation of cesarean section scar by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990; 16: 443-447.
9. Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T, Erata Y, Posaci C,. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31-34. (Pubitemid 127538516)
10. Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE,. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the "niche" in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1105-1115. (Pubitemid 32937503)
11. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L,. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525-532.
12. Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E,. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 321-327.
13. Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R, Irion O, Boulvain M,. Inter- and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 420-424. (Pubitemid 43735482)
14. Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FM, Nastri CO, Filho FM,. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 301-306.
15. Jurkovic D,. Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecology: a critical evaluation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 109-111.
16. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brolmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA,. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 93-99.
17. Cheong KB, Leung KY, Li TK, Chan HY, Lee YP, Tang MH,. Comparison of inter- and intraobserver agreement and reliability between three different types of placental volume measurement technique (XI VOCAL, VOCAL and multiplanar) and validity in the in-vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 210-217.
18. Vikhareva Osser O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L,. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 90-97.
19. Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ,. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 85-89.
20. Menada, Valenzano M, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E, Costantini S, Ragni N,. Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after caesarean section: correlation with gynaecological symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2006; 61: 216-222.
21. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, Rozenberg S,. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 289-292. (Pubitemid 38365809)
22. Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH,. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 61-65. (Pubitemid 36057089)
23. 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.
24. Vikhareva Osser O,. Ultrasound Studies of Caesarean Hysterotomy Scars. Lund University: Sweden, 2010.
25. Chazotte C, Cohen WR,. Catastrophic complications of previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 738-742. (Pubitemid 20328723)
26. Enkin M, Keirse MJNC,. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Medical Publications: Oxford University, 1995.
27. Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ,. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 320 e1-e6.
28. 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. (Pubitemid 26041038)
29. 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 Nihon Med Sch 2000; 67: 352-356.
30. Qureshi B, Inafuku K, Oshima K, Masamoto H, Kanazawa K,. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment to predict the integrity and quality of cesarean scar during pregnancy: a prospective study. Tohoku J Exp Med 1997; 183: 55-65. (Pubitemid 127471157)
31. Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, Yoshimura S, Miyamura T, Ishimaru T,. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 596-600. (Pubitemid 30139583)
32. Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S,. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87: 215-219. (Pubitemid 39535081)
33. Story L, Patterson-Brown S,. Caesarean deliveries: indications, techniques and complications. In Best Practice in Labour and Delivery, Warren R, Arulkumaran S, (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2009; 104-115.
34. The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Measurement of cervical length. http://www.fetalmedicine.com/fmf/online-education/05-cervical-assessment [Accessed 1 March 2011].
35. Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Timmerman D, Bourne T,. Visibility and measurement of Cesarean section scars in pregnancy: an interobserver variability study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; in press.
36. Timmerman D, Schwarzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, Vergote I, Bourne TH,. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 11-16. (Pubitemid 29097172)
37. Chen LH, Tan KH, Yeo GS,. A ten-year review of uterine rupture in modern obstetric practice. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1995; 24: 830-835.