Startseite Accidental uterine extensions in cesarean deliveries – outcome of subsequent pregnancy
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Accidental uterine extensions in cesarean deliveries – outcome of subsequent pregnancy

  • Shlomi Toussia-Cohen ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Aviran Ohayon , Hila Lahav-Ezra , Michal Axelrod , Daphna Amitai Komem ORCID logo , Gabriel Levin ORCID logo , Eyal Sivan und Raanan Meyer ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 27. Juni 2024

Abstract

Objectives

To explore the obstetric, maternal and neonatal outcome in the subsequent pregnancy after a pregnancy with an accidental uterine extension (AUE) during cesarean delivery (CD), as well as the relationship between the different types of AUE (inferior, lateral and superior).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of all CD with AUE in a tertiary medical center between 01/2011–01/2022. Women with a prior CD with AUE were compared to a 1:3 ratio matched control group of women with a prior CD without AUE. All AUE were defined in their direction, size and mode of suturing. CD with deliberate uterine extensions were excluded. We evaluated obstetric, maternal and neonatal outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy after a pregnancy with AUE during CD.

Results

Comparing women with a prior CD with AUE (n=177) to the matched control group of women with a prior CD without AUE (n=528), we found no significant differences in proportions of uterine rupture or any other major complication or adverse outcome between the groups. There were no significant differences in the outcomes of the subsequent pregnancy in relation to the characteristics of the AUE (direction, size and mode of suturing).

Conclusions

Subsequent pregnancies after AUE are not associated with higher maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes including higher proportions of uterine rupture compared to pregnancies without previous AUE. Different characteristics of the AUE do not impact the outcome.


Corresponding author: Shlomi Toussia-Cohen, MD, The Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer 52621, Ramat-Gan, Israel; and The Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mr. Itamar Toussia-Cohen for creating the original figures attached to this manuscript.

  1. Research ethics: Institutional Review Board approval (9852-22-SMC) was obtained for the study waiving informed consent. The Institutional Review Board approved the use of patient database retrospectively.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  4. Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  5. Research funding: None declared.

  6. Data availability: Not applicable.

References

1. Asıcıoglu, O, Gungorduk, K, Asıcıoglu, BB, Yıldırım, G, Gungorduk, OC, Ark, C. Unintended extension of the lower segment uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of sharp versus blunt techniques. Am J Perinatol 2014;31:837–44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1361934.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJK, Driscoll, AK, Drake, P. Births: final data for 2016. In: National vital statistics reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2018, vol LXVII.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Hammad, IA, Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF, Abuhamad, AZ. Peripartum complications with cesarean delivery: a review of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network publications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;27:463–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.818970.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Patel, SS, Koelper, NC, Srinivas, SK, Sammel, MD, Levine, LD. Adverse maternal outcomes associated with uterine extensions at the time of cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2019;36:785–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676827.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

5. de la Torre, L, González-Quintero, VH, Mayor-Lynn, K, Smarkusky, L, Hoffman, MC, Saab, A, et al.. Significance of accidental extensions in the lower uterine segment during cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:e4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.026.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Giugale, LE, Sakamoto, S, Yabes, J, Dunn, SL, Krans, EE. Unintended hysterotomy extension during caesarean delivery: risk factors and maternal morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018;38:1048–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2018.1446421.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

7. Wilkie, G, Shipp, TD, Little, SE, Fadayomi, A, Carusi, DA. Hysterotomy extension at cesarean delivery and future uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2021;137:271–272. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004234.Suche in Google Scholar

8. Goldfarb, I. Inadvertent hysterotomy extension at cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture in the next pregnancy; 2011. Available from: https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)01952-6/fulltext#%20.Suche in Google Scholar

9. Peled, T, Ashwal, E, Rotem, R, Sela, HY, Grisaru Granovsky, S, Rottenstreich, M. Unintended lower-segment hysterotomy extension at cesarean delivery and the risk for uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023;162:957–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14785.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Landon, MB, Hauth, JC, Leveno, KJ, Spong, CY, Leindecker, S, Varner, MW, et al.. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2581–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040405.Suche in Google Scholar

11. Karavani, G, Chill, HH, Reuveni-Salzman, A, Guedalia, J, Ben Menahem-Zidon, O, Cohen, N, et al.. Risk factors for uterine incision extension during cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022;35:2156–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1783230.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Carpenter, MW, Coustan, DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:768–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(82)90349-0.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Committee on Obstetric Practice, A.e.C.o.O.a.G. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 326, December 2005. Inappropriate use of the terms fetal distress and birth asphyxia. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:1469–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200512000-00056.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Shah, PS, Beyene, J, To, T, Ohlsson, A, Perlman, M. Postasphyxial hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in neonates: outcome prediction rule within 4 hours of birth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160:729–36. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.7.729.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Krenke, R, Grabczak, EM. Pleural manometry and thoracentesis-is the issue resolved? Lancet Respir Med 2019;7:374–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30033-5.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Wang, S, Gu, J. The effect of prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve in patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Ovarian Res 2021;14:86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-021-00825-w.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2024-02-27
Accepted: 2024-06-16
Published Online: 2024-06-27
Published in Print: 2024-09-25

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Corner of Academy
  3. The IAPM New York 2024 declaration on professional responsibility and abortion
  4. Review
  5. Common foot and ankle disorders in pregnancy: the role of diagnostic ultrasound
  6. Opinion Paper
  7. Reproductive genetic carrier screening in pregnancy: improving health outcomes and expanding access
  8. Original Articles – Obstetrics
  9. “It feels like you have to choose one or the other”: a qualitative analysis of obstetrician focus groups on periviability counseling
  10. Expectant management vs. cerclage in cases with prolapsed or visible membranes in the second trimester: is 24 weeks gestation threshold critical?
  11. Prevention of preterm birth in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
  12. Accidental uterine extensions in cesarean deliveries – outcome of subsequent pregnancy
  13. Effect of acidic vaginal pH on the efficacy of dinoprostone (PGE2) vaginal tablet for labor induction in full term pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial
  14. Oligohydramnios at term in the high-risk population – how severe is severe?
  15. Original Articles – Fetus
  16. Assessment of the fetal thymic-thoracic ratio in pregnant women with intrahepatic cholestasis: a prospective case-control study
  17. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia treated via fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion improves outcome in a middle-income country
  18. Fetal bradyarrhythmias: classification, monitoring and outcomes of 40 cases at a single center
  19. Deep learning based detection and classification of fetal lip in ultrasound images
  20. Original Articles – Neonates
  21. Cytomegalovirus congenital infection: long-term outcomes in a valaciclovir treated population
  22. Does placental VEGF-A protein expression predict early neurological outcome of neonates from FGR complicated pregnancies?
  23. Letters to the Editor
  24. Why do women choose home births: correspondence
  25. Enhancing safety and outcomes in home births: a detailed response to concerns and recommendations
Heruntergeladen am 19.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2024-0077/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen