Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 578-583

  Di Spiezio Sardo, A ^a   Saccone, G ^a   McCurdy, R ^b   Bujold, E ^c   Bifulco, G ^a   Berghella, V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

isthmocele; minimally invasive therapy; niche; scar defects; scar pregnancy; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; COMPLICATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MYOMETRIUM; PATHOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK FACTOR; SCAR; SURGERY; SUTURE TECHNIQUE; UTERUS; UTERUS RUPTURE; WOUND DEHISCENCE;

CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; FEMALE; HUMANS; MYOMETRIUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS;

EID: 85031096197     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17401     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016; 65: 1–15.
2. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann 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.
3. van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG 2014; 121: 236–244.
4. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 2695–2702.
5. 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.
6. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, de Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. 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 Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 132–139.
7. Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, Chaillet N, Moore L, Bujold E. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 453–460.
8. 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 hysterectomy incision during caesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115: 5–10.
9. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1607–1617.
10. Xodo S, Saccone G, Cromi A, Ozcan P, Spagnolo E, Berghella V. Cephalad-caudad versus transverse blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision during cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 202: 75–80.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 (update March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. (accessed May 16 2016).
12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1006–1012.
13. Borowski K, Andrews J, Hocking M, Hansen W, Fleener D, Syrop C. Ultrasonographic detection of cesarean scar defects in a trial of single versus double layer closure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: S62.
14. Lal K, Tsomo P. Comparative study of single layer and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1988; 27: 349–352.
15. Guyot-Cottrel A. Essai CHORUS: Comparaison de l'aspect échographique de la cicatrice de césarienne selon une fermeture utérine en un plan ou en deux plans. Abstract. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descarte: Paris, 2011.
16. El-Gharib MN, Awara AM. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar thickness after single versus double layer closure of transverse lower segment cesarean section. J Basic Clin Reprod Sci 2013; 2: 42–45.
17. Yasmin S, Sadaf J, Fatima N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat cesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011; 21: 522–526.
18. Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 16–18.
19. CORONIS collaborative group, Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Mathews JE, Naz Masood S, Oyarzun E, Oyieke J, Sharma JB, Spark P. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 62–72.
20. Bennich G, Rudnicki M, Wilken-Jensen C, Lousen T, Lassed PN, Wojdemann K. Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a Cesarean uterine incision: randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 417–422.
21. Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, Vikhareva O, Markey S, Chaillet N, Moore L, Paris G, Bujold E. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214: 507.e1–6.
22. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Ekholm-Selling K, Råssjö EB, Jonsson M. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single- compared with double-layer closure: a Swedish cohort study. BJOG 2015; 122: 1535–1541.
23. Roberge S, Bujold E. Closure of uterus and the risk of uterine rupture. BJOG 2015; 122: 1542.
24. Yazicioglu F, Gökdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygün 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.