Top

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Published in:

01-08-2017 | Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine

Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section

Authors: Yan Chen, Ping Han, Yi-Jia Wang, Yan-Xia Li

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 2/2017

Abstract

Objective

To analyze related risk factors of post-cesarean scar defects (PCSDs).

Methods

A retrospective study of full-term women delivered by cesarean with singleton infants at our hospital from April 2014 to December 2015 was performed. 69 cases of diagnosed PCSDs and 107 cases with no PCSD who accepted cesarean were recruited for analysis. Individual medical case and operative report review were retrieved for maternal clinical characteristics analysis.

Results

There was no difference in age, gestational age, BMI and baby’s weight between the two groups. PCSD group has more cases of anemia, higher neutrophil percentage and more cases of elected cesarean and emergency cesarean than controls (all p < 0.05). For woman who received emergency cesarean, there were more cases with cervix dilated larger than 3 cm in operation and more cases received cesarean at least one time before. In addition, women with cesarean interval of at least 5 years, women with ultrasonic measured echo longer than 3 cm, women with poor healing in uterine incision, women with retroposition of uterus and women who had intrauterine separation are more prone to develop PCSDs.

Conclusions

The occurrence of a defective uterine scar after cesarean section is primarily a by-product of the combination of multiple factors: age ≥30 years, BMI ≥27.30, premature rupture of membranes, elective cesarean section, post-operative anemia, WBC count ≥12.5 × 10⁹ g/L and retroposition of uterus. These are high risk factors of PCSDs.

Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR (2016) The increasing trend in cesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 11(2):e0148343. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Menacker F, Hamilton BE (2010) Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the US. NCHS Data Brief 35:1–8

Runmei M, Terence TL, Yonghu S, Hong X, Yuqin T, Bailuan L, Minghui Y, Weihong Y, Kun L, Guohua L, Hongyu L, Li G, Renmin N, Wenjin Q, Zhuo C, Mingyu D, Bei Z, Jing X, Yanping T, Lan Z, Xianyan S, Zaiqing Q, Qian S, Xiaoyun Y, Jihui Y, Dandan Z (2012) Practice audits to reduce cesareans in a tertiary referral hospital in south-western China. Bull World Health Organ 90(7):488–494. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.093369 PubMedPubMedCentral

Liu X-N (2016) The countermeasures of high cesarean section rate in China. J Pract Gynecol Endocrinol (CHN) 3(8):17–18

Baron J, Weintraub AY, Eshkoli T, Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E (2014) The consequences of previous uterine scar dehiscence and cesarean delivery on subsequent births. Int J Gynaecol Obstetr 126(2):120–122. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.022 CrossRef

Schepker N, Garcia-Rocha GJ, von Versen-Hoynck F, Hillemanns P, Schippert C (2015) Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after cesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(6):1417–1423. doi:10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0 CrossRefPubMed

Madaan M, Agrawal S, Nigam A, Aggarwal R, Trivedi SS (2011) Trial of labour after previous cesarean section: the predictive factors affecting outcome. J Obstetr Gynaecol 31(3):224–228. doi:10.3109/01443615.2010.544426 CrossRef

Tower AM, Frishman GN (2013) Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J Minim Invas Gynecol 20(5):562–572. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.03.008 CrossRef

Brahmalakshmy BL, Kushtagi P (2015) Variables influencing the integrity of lower uterine segment in post-cesarean pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(4):755–762. doi:10.1007/s00404-014-3455-6 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kerr JMM (1926) The technic of cesarean section, with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 12(1):729–734CrossRef

11.

Jauniaux E (2016) Rupture of a cesarean scar during a trial of vaginal birth: a dramatic consequence as old as the modern cesarean section. BJOG Int J Obstetr Gynaecol 123(10):1675. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14173 CrossRef

12.

Jacob L, Weber K, Sechet I, Macharey G, Kostev K, Ziller V (2016) Cesarean section and its impact on fertility and time to a subsequent pregnancy in Germany: a database analysis in gynecological practices. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294(5):1005–1010. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4160-4 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Roberts H, Kohlenber C, Lanzarone V, Murray H (1998) Ectopic pregnancy in lower segment uterine scar. Austr N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol 38(1):114–116CrossRef

14.

He Y, Hu J, Zhang X, Huang H, Chen Q (2014) Clinical analysis of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening in 66 cases. Zhonghua fu chan ke za zhi 49(10):741–745PubMed

15.

Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L (2010) Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section. BJOG Int J Obstetr Gynaecol 117(9):1119–1126. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02631.x CrossRef

16.

Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brolmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA (2015) Why do niches develop in cesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 30(12):2695–2702. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev240 PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygun M, Savan K (2006) Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section: is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 124(1):32–36. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.023 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J, Jurkovic D (2008) Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol 31(1):72–77. doi:10.1002/uog.5200 CrossRef

19.

Lofrumento DD, Di Nardo MA, De Falco M, Di Lieto A (2016) Uterine wound healing: a complex process mediated by proteins and peptides. Curr Protein Pept Sci 18(2):125–128. doi:10.2174/1389203717666160322145939

20.

Eming SA, Brachvogel B, Odorisio T, Koch M (2007) Regulation of angiogenesis: wound healing as a model. Prog Histochem Cytochem 42(3):115–170. doi:10.1016/j.proghi.2007.06.001 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M (2016) Standardized ultrasonographic approach for the assessment of risk factors of incomplete healing of the cesarean section scar in the uterus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 205:141–145. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.032 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, Moore L, Jastrow N, Demers S, Bujold E (2012) Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol 29(6):465–471. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1304829 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Dosedla E, Calda P (2016) Can the final sonographic assessment of the cesarean section scar be predicted 6 weeks after the operation? Taiwan J Obstetr Gynecol 55(5):718–720. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2015.07.006 CrossRef

24.

Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ (2009) Cesarean scar defect: correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol 34(1):85–89. doi:10.1002/uog.6405 CrossRef

25.

Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q, Chen J, Ding J, Hua K (2016) Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstetr 134(3):336–339. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.04.011 CrossRef

26.

Schugart RC, Friedman A, Zhao R, Sen CK (2008) Wound angiogenesis as a function of tissue oxygen tension: a mathematical model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(7):2628–2633. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711642105 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA (2014) Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol 43(4):372–382. doi:10.1002/uog.13199 CrossRef

Title: Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section
Authors: Yan Chen
Ping Han
Yi-Jia Wang
Yan-Xia Li
Publication date: 01-08-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4417-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Message from the Editor-in-Chief

Compartment syndrome after gynecologic laparoscopy: systematic review of the literature and establishment of normal values for postoperative serum creatine kinase and myoglobin levels

The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach

Ponderal index at birth associates with later risk of gestational diabetes mellitus

Mifepristone vs balloon catheter for labor induction in previous cesarean: a randomized controlled trial

Embryo density may affect embryo quality during in vitro culture in a microwell group culture dish