Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: A meta-analysis

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 132-139

  Kok, N ^a   Wiersma, I C ^a   Opmeer, B C ^a   De Graaf, I M ^a   Mol, B W ^a   Pajkrt, E ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; lower uterine segment; sonography; trial of labor; uterine rupture

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LOWER UTERINE SEGMENT; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; TRIAL OF LABOR; UTERUS; UTERUS RUPTURE; PROCEDURES; UTERINE RUPTURE;

CAESAREAN SECTION; LOWER UTERINE SEGMENT; SONOGRAPHY; TRIAL OF LABOR; UTERINE RUPTURE;

FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; TRIAL OF LABOR; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84881338296     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.12479     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F,. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38: 179-192.
2. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, Olshan AF,. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 689-695.
3. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP,. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 3-8.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450-463.
5. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ,; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1226-1232.
6. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JI, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J,. Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG 2009; 116: 1069-1078.
7. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ,. Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 311-314.
8. 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.
9. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J,. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 25.
10. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH,. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982-990.
11. Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T,. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 2002; 21: 589-624.
12. Arends LR, Hamza TH, van Houwelingen JC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG, Stijnen T,. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 621-638.
13. 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.
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. Fukuda M, Shimizu T, Ihara Y, Fukuda K, Natsuyama E, Mochizuki M,. Ultrasound examination of caesarean section scars during pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1991; 248: 129-138.
16. 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.
17. 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 labour: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nippon Med Sch 2000; 67: 352-356.
18. 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. e1-6.
19. Cheung VY, Constantinescu OC, Ahluwalia BS,. Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 1441-1447.
20. Cheung VY,. Sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27: 674-681.
21. Dane B, Dane C, Gultekin E, Cetin A, Yayla M,. Is it possible to predict the lower uterine segment thickness by sonographic examination in cases with previous abdominal delivery? Turkiye Klinikleri Jinekoloji Obstetrik 2010; 20: 161-164.
22. Fukuda M, Fukuda K, Mochizuki M,. Examination of previous caesarean section scars by ultrasound. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1988; 243: 221-224.
23. Hebisch G, Kirkinen P, Haldemann R, Paakkoo E, Huch A, Huch R,. Comparative study of the lower uterine segment after Cesarean section using ultrasound and magnetic resonance tomography. Ultraschall Med 1994; 15: 112-116.
24. Kushtagi P, Garepalli S,. Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment at term in women with previous cesarean delivery. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2011; 283: 455-459.
25. Montanari L, Alfei A, Drovanti A, Lepadatu C, Lorenzi D, Facchini D, Iervasi MT, Sampaolo P,. Transvaginal ultrasonic evaluation of the thickness of the section of the uterine wall in previous cesarean sections. Minerva Ginecol 1999; 51: 107-112.
26. Mohammed ABF, Al-Moghazi DA, Hamdy MT, Mohammed EM,. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in pregnant women with previous cesarean section. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 2010; 15: 188-193.
27. Popov I., The ultrasonic assessment of the cicatrix after a past cesarean section. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 1994; 33: 10-12.
28. 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.
29. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I,. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999; 87: 39-45.
30. 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.
31. Suzuki S, Sawa R, Yoneyama Y, Asakura H, Araki T,. Preoperative diagnosis of dehiscence of the lower uterine segment in patients with a single previous Caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40: 402-404.
32. Tanik A, Ustun C, Cil E, Arslan A,. Sonographic evaluation of the wall thickness of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean section. J Clin Ultrasound 1996; 24: 355-357.
33. Vaclavinkova V, Westin B,. Ultrasonic diagnosis of scar defects following cesarean section. Zentralbl Gynäkol 1984; 106: 686-692.
34. Leeflang MM, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, Zwinderman AH,. Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data-driven selection of optimal cut-off values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions. Clin Chem 2008; 54: 729-737.
35. Peaceman AM, Sciarra JJ,. Encouraging trials of labour for patients with previous caesarean birth. Lancet 1996; 347: 278.
36. Petrikovsky BM,. Rupture of the scarred uterus: prediction and diagnosis. Lancet 1996; 347: 838-839.
37. 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.
38. Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Hauth JC, Bloom S, Varner MW, Moawad AH, Caritis SN, Harper M, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, Miodovnik M, Carpenter M, Peaceman AM, O'Sullivan MJ, Sibai BM, Langer O, Thorp JM, Ramin SM, Mercer BM, Gabbe SG,; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 1016-1023.
39. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, Janik R, Nygren P, Walker M, McDonagh M,. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2010; 191: 1-397.
40. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Rouse DJ, Varner MW, Caritis SN, Harper M, Wapner RJ, and, Sorokin Y,. The change in the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2011, 25: 37-43.