Startseite Medizin Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of uterine defects on previous cesarean delivery scars
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of uterine defects on previous cesarean delivery scars

  • Changdong Li , Yinshu Guo , Yun Liu , Jiumei Cheng und Weiyuan Zhang EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 4. Dezember 2013

Abstract

Objective: To examine the treatment of previous cesarean delivery scar defect after cesarean delivery and the feasibility of laparoscopic uterine repair or hysteroscopic scar excision.

Study Design: A retrospective clinical study that took place from June 2009 to March 2013 and included 41 women who had previously had cesarean deliveries.

Results: Seventeen women underwent a laparoscopic approach for the repair of scar diverticula, and 24 women underwent a hysteroscopic resection of fibrotic tissue overhanging underneath the diverticula. Most women remained free of symptoms over a 3- to 16-month follow-up and 6 women became pregnant without pregnancy complications.

Conclusion: Women with a history of cesarean delivery combined with irregular perimenstrual bleeding should undergo combined hysteroscopy and ultrasound examination to detect latent scar defects. In diagnosed cases, in those who desired future pregnancies and had a residual myometrial thickness of <3.5 mm or a defect that accounted for ≥50% of the anterior uterine wall, laparoscopic surgical repair was performed with good postoperative anatomic outcomes. Women with residual myometrial thickness of ≥3.5 mm or a defect that accounted for <50% of the anterior uterine wall were treated with hysteroscopic surgery and had a relief of symptoms.


Corresponding author: Weiyuan Zhang, Beijing Obstetric and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University, No 251 Yao Jiayuan Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100026, China, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the grants “High-Level Talents Project” (2013-3-029) and “Hundred Levels of Health Talents” from Beijing Municipal Health Bureau to Changdong Li. This study was also supported by a capital citizens health project (cultivation) from Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission to Changdong Li.

References

[1] Borges LM, Scapinelli A, de Baptista Depes D, Lippi UG, Coelho Lopes RG. Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean section. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:361–4.10.1016/j.jmig.2010.02.007Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:43–50.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e41be3Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J. Laparoscopic repair of wide and deep uterine scar dehiscence after cesarean section. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:974–80.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.024Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Fabres C, Arriagada P, Fernández C, Mackenna A, Zegers F, Fernández E. Surgical treatment and follow-up of women with intermenstrual bleeding due to cesarean section scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:25–8.10.1016/j.jmig.2004.12.023Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Fabres C, Aviles G, De La Jara C, Escalona J, Muñoz JF, Mackenna A, et al. The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:695–700.10.7863/jum.2003.22.7.695Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Feng YL, Li MX, Liang XQ, Li XM. Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:498–502.10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.010Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Gagnon AJ, Van Hulst A, Merry L, George A, Saucier JF, Stanger E, et al. Cesarean section rate differences by migration indicators. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287:633–9.10.1007/s00404-012-2609-7Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Goyal V. Uterine rupture in second-trimester misoprostol-induced abortion after cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1117–23.10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819dbfe2Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E. Resectoscopic correction of the “isthmocele” in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:172–5.10.1016/j.jmig.2007.10.004Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:431–44.10.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] 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;32:321–7.10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34475-9Suche in Google Scholar

[12] Klemm P, Koehler C, Mangler M, Schneider U, Schneider A. Laparoscopic and vaginal repair of uterine scar dehiscence following cesarean section as detected by ultrasound. J Perinat Med. 2005;33:324–31.10.1515/JPM.2005.058Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–2008. Lancet. 2010;375:490–9.10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5Suche in Google Scholar

[14] 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;14:16–20.10.1097/00004347-199501000-00004Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:75–83.10.1002/uog.7496Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, Moore L, Jastrow N, Demers S, et al. Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:465–71.10.1055/s-0032-1304829Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Rosen T. Placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy: overlooked costs of the rising cesarean section rate. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35:519–29.10.1016/j.clp.2008.07.003Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:85–9.10.1002/uog.6405Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Wang CJ, Huang HJ, Chao A, Lin YP, Pan YJ, Horng SG. Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar defect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;154:218–22.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.10.016Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Zhou Y, Ji N, Pang C, He D, Hou L, Cheng Y. Risk factors associated with cesarean section in a Chinese rural population: a cross sectional study. J Reprod Med. 2012;57:441–5.Suche in Google Scholar

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2013-4-15
Accepted: 2013-11-4
Published Online: 2013-12-4
Published in Print: 2014-5-1

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Academy’s Corner – a new section at JPM
  4. Academy’s Corner
  5. Global education in perinatal medicine: will the bureaucracy or smartocracy prevail?
  6. Review articles
  7. Placental chorioangioma: literature review
  8. Sonographic measurement of cervical length as a predictor of preterm delivery: a systematic review
  9. Original articles – Obstetrics
  10. Peripartum anesthetic management of patients with Factor XI deficiency
  11. Risk of inferior vena cava compression syndrome during fetal MRI in the supine position – a retrospective analysis
  12. Fetal behavioral states are stable over daytime – evidence by longitudinal and cross-sectional fetal biomagnetic recordings
  13. Diet or medically treated gestational diabetes: is there any difference for obstetrical and neonatal complications? A French cohort study
  14. Cerebroplacental Doppler ratio and placental histopathological features in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction
  15. Placental syndecan-1 and sulphated glycosaminoglycans are decreased in preeclampsia
  16. Pharmacological anti-thrombotic prophylaxis after elective caesarean delivery in thrombophilia unscreened women: should maternal age have a role in decision making?
  17. Values of T/QRS ratios measured during normal and post-term pregnancies
  18. The factors associated with the failure of transcatheter pelvic arterial embolization for intractable postpartum hemorrhage
  19. Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of uterine defects on previous cesarean delivery scars
  20. Chemerin concentrations in maternal and fetal compartments: implications for metabolic adaptations to normal human pregnancy
  21. Repetitive administration of acetylcholine receptor agonist rescues brain inflammation and brain damage after hypoxia-ischemia in newborn rat
  22. Original article – Fetus
  23. Fetal hydronephrosis: natural history and risk factors for postnatal surgery
  24. Original article – Newborn
  25. Cytomegalovirus infection among infants in California neonatal intensive care units, 2005–2010
  26. Letter to the Editors
  27. Origin of the long-term variability and acceleration of FHR studied for the prevention of cerebral palsy in fetal hypoxia and general insults
  28. Neonatal phototherapy, fluids, and photorelaxation
  29. Congress Calendar
  30. Congress Calendar
Heruntergeladen am 14.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2013-0081/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen