Cesarean scar imaging and prediction of subsequent obstetric complications

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 988-996

  Varner, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

hysterotomy scar; previous cesarean; trial of labor after cesarean; ultrasound; uterine dehiscence; uterine rupture

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SCAR IMAGING; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; ELASTOGRAPHY; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; HUMAN; HYSTEROGRAPHY; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; HYSTEROTOMY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANT WOMAN; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUERPERIUM; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; THIRD TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERUS RUPTURE;

CERVIX UTERI; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; ELASTICITY IMAGING TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRIAL OF LABOR; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 84868095623     PISSN: 00099201     EISSN: 15325520     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e318263c699     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: Final data for 2009. National Vital Statistics Reports; Volume 60 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2011.
2. Guise J-M, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 191. (Prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidencebased Practice Center under Contract No. 290- 2007-10057-I). AHRQ Publication No. 10-E003. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2010.
3. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2581-2589.
4. Schwalm H, Dubrauszky V. The structure of the musculature of the human uterus-muscles and connective tissue. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;94: 391-404.
5. Wojdecki J, Grynsztahn A. Scar formation in the uterus after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970;107:322-324.
6. 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.
7. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, et al. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:72-77.
8. Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:808-813.
9. Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus twolayer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:16-18.
10. Durnwald C, Mercer B. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:925-929.
11. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton ER, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326-1330.
12. Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, et al. Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:465-472.
13. Zimmer EZ, Bardin R, Tamir A, et al. Sonographic imaging of cervical scars after Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23: 594-598.
14. Berube L, Arial M, Gagnon G, et al. Factors associated with lower uterine segment thickness near term in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33:581-587.
15. Zilberman A, Sharf M, Polishuk WZ. Evaluation of cesarean section scar by hysterography. Obstet Gynecol. 1968;32:153-157.
16. 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.
17. Vij de Vaate AM, Brolmann HAM, van der Voet LF, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relations between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:93-99.
18. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet. 1996;347:281-284.
19. Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, et al. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:596-600.
20. Martins WP, Barra A, Gallarreta FMP, et al. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and threedimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33: 301-306.
21. Cheung VYT, Yang F, Leung K-Y. 2D versus 3D transabdominal sonography for the measurement of lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;114:234-237.
22. Hebisch G, Kirkinen P, Haldemann R, et al. Comparative study of the lower uterine segment after Cesarean section using ultrasound and magnetic resonance tomography. Ultraschall Med. 1994;15:112-116.
23. Morita S, Ueno E, FujimuraM, et al. Feasibility of diffusion-weighted MRI for defining placental invasion. JMagnReson Imaging. 2009;30:666-671.
24. Vikhareva Osser OV, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomyscar at transvaginal ultrasound in non-pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;117:525-532.
25. Waniorek A. Hysterography after cesarean section. With special reference to the effect of subsequent delivery on the hysterographic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;94:42-49.
26. Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, et al. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:321-327.