Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: A cohort study

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 207-212

  Glavind, J ^a   Madsen, L D ^a   Uldbjerg, N ^a   Dueholm, M ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cesarean delivery; Cesarean scar thickness; suture techniques; vaginal ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERUS; WOUND CLOSURE; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SCAR THICKNESS; SCAR; SUTURING METHOD; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERUS; WOUND CLOSURE TECHNIQUES;

CESAREAN DELIVERY; CESAREAN SCAR THICKNESS; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; VAGINAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84881360464     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.12376     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E, Abdous B, Sidi EA, Kinch R, Miner L, Masse A, Fortin C, Gagné GP, Fortier A, Bastien G, Sabbah R, Guimond P, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ,. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 43-50.
2. Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BK, Helfand M,. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ 2004; 329: 19-25.
3. Fitzpatrick KE, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M,. Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001184.
4. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, Gauthier RJ,. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 1199-1202.
5. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N, Gauthier RJ, Hudic I, Shipp TD, Weimar CH, Fatusic Z, Demers S, Bujold E,. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115: 5-10.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L,. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG 2010; 117: 1119-1126.
10. Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, Moore L, Jastrow N, Demers S, Bujold E,. Systematic review of Cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29: 465-471.
11. Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Lees C, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA, Timmerman D, Bourne T,. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 252-259.
12. 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.
13. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, Suzuki M, Tamakoshi K, Kikkawa F,. 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.
14. 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.
15. Jastrow N, Gauthier RJ, Gagnon G, Leroux N, Beaudoin F, Bujold E,. Impact of labor at prior cesarean on lower uterine segment thickness in subsequent pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 563. e1-7.
16. 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.
17. 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: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 549-556.
18. 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.
19. 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.