Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section: Is it preventable by intraoperative digital dilatation of the internal cervical ostium?

Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 131-135

  Yazicioglu, Hasan Fehmi ^a   Sevket, Osman ^a   Ekin, Murat ^a   Ozyurt, Osman ^a   Aygun, Mehmet ^a  

^a BEZMIALEM VAKIF UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Digital dilatation of the cervix; Incomplete healing; Uterine incision scar

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCAR; SCAR FORMATION; SURGICAL WOUND; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX DILATATION; WOUND HEALING IMPAIRMENT;

ADULT; CERVIX UTERI; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; DILATATION; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 84866731846     PISSN: 03787346     EISSN: 1423002X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000339936     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Maldjian C, Adam R, Maldjian J, Smith R: MRI appearance of the pelvis in the post ce-sarean-section patient. Magn Reson Imaging 1999;17: 223-227.
2. Kirkinen P: Ultrasonography of the lower uterine segment after multiple caesarean sections. Ann Med 1990;22:137-139.
3. Chen HY, Chen SJ, Hsieh FJ: Observation of cesarean section scar by transvaginal ultra-sonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990;16: 443-447.
4. Baker ME, Kay H, Mahony BS, Cooper CJ, Bowie JD: Sonography of the low transverse incision, cesarean section: a prospective study. J Ultrasound Med 1988;7: 389-393.
5. Michaels WH, Thompson HO, Boutt A, Schreiber FR, Michaels SL, Karo J: Ultrasound diagnosis of defects in the scarred lower uterine segment during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71: 112-120.
6. Petrikovsky BM: Endoscopic assessment of the integrity of the postcesarean uterine wall before a trial of labor. Transcervical endos-copy registry. J Reprod Med 1994;39:464-466.
7. Morris H: Surgical pathology of the lower uterine segment caesarean section scar: is the scar a source of clinical symptoms? Int J Gynecol Pathol 1995;14: 16-20.
8. Kiss D, Gyorik J, Rajkovits K: Histological examination of uterus healing following ce-sarean section. Zentralbl Gynakol 1978;100: 309-312.
9. Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, Yoshimu-ra S, Miyamura T, Ishimaru T: Predicting in-complete uterine rupture with vaginal so-nography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95: 596-600.
10. Jarvela IY, Sladkevicius P, Kelly S, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G: Cesarean delivery scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gy necol 20 02;19: 632-633.
11. Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH: Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:61-65.
12. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I: Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;87: 39-45.
13. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I: Ultrasonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of the scarred uterus. Lancet 1996;347: 281-284.
14. Wang W, Long W, Yu Q: Complication of ce-sarean section: pregnancy on the cicatrix of a previous cesarean section. Chin Med J (Engl) 2002;115:242-246.
15. Haimov-Kochman R, Sciaky-Tamir Y, Yanai N, Yagel S: Conser vat ive ma na gement of two ectopic pregnancies implanted in previous uterine scars. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19: 616-619.
16. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA: Cesar-ean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterogra-phy. J Ultrasound Med 1999;18: 13-16.
17. Nominato N, Prates LF, Lauar I, Morais J, Maia L, Geber S: Caesarean section greatly increases risk of scar endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;152: 83-85.
18. 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.
19. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M: The Mis-gav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:615-621.
20. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, et al: Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23: 289-292.
21. 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 ultraso-nography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:429-434.
22. 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 Gy necol 20 07;110: 808-813.
23. Osser OV, Valentin L: Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cae-sarean section. BJOG 2010;117:1119-1126.