Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Hematoma | Educational Review

Imaging findings of cesarean delivery complications: cesarean scar disease and much more

Authors: F. Rosa, G. Perugin, D. Schettini, N. Romano, S. Romeo, R. Podestà, A. Guastavino, A. Casaleggio, N. Gandolfo

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

In the last years, there has been a significant increase in the number of cesarean deliveries and, with it, of the number of complications following the procedure. They can be divided into early and late ones. We will illustrate herein the most common complications following cesarean section to help radiologists to recognize them. To familiarize with these various pathologic conditions is crucial to alert referring clinicians for a prompt and appropriate maternal and fetal management. Special attention will be given to the cesarean scar defect (CSD), the most common but also the most unknown of such conditions. Although often asymptomatic, a severe CSD represents a predisposing factor for subsequent complications especially in future pregnancies.
Literature
1.
2.
Nielsen TF, Hökegård KH (1983) Postoperative cesarean section morbidity: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 146(8):911–916CrossRef
3.
diFlorio-Alexander R, Harris RD (2011) Postpartum complications. In: Fielding JR, Brown DL, Thurmond AS (eds) Gynecologic imaging. Pa Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 381–398CrossRef
4.
Maldjian C, Adam R, Maldjian J, Smith R (1999) MRI appearance of the pelvis in the post cesarean-section patient. Magn Reson Imaging. 17(2):223–227CrossRef
5.
Motomura K, Ganchimeg T, Nagata C et al (2017) Incidence and outcomes of uterine rupture among women with prior caesarean section: WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Sci Rep 7:44093
6.
Maldjian C, Milestone B, Schnall M, Smith R (1998) MR appearance of uterine dehiscence in the post-cesarean section patient. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22(5):738–774CrossRef
7.
Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L (2010) Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG 117:1119–1126CrossRef
8.
Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA (2015) Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 30:2695–2702PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E et al (2008) Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:72–77CrossRef
10.
Uppal T, Lanzarone V, Mongelli M (2011) Sonographically detected caesarean section scar defects and menstrual irregularity. J Obstet Gynaecol. 31:413–416CrossRef
11.
Fabres C, Arriagada P, Fernández C, Mackenna A, Zegers F, Fernández E (2005) Surgical treatment and follow-up of women with intermenstrual bleeding due to cesarean section scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 12:25–28CrossRef
12.
Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH (2003) Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 101:61–65PubMed
13.
14.
Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al (2004) Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 23:289–292CrossRef
15.
Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA (1999) Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 18:13–16.9CrossRef
16.
Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA (2011) Ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 37:93–99
17.
Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D et al (2011) Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:234–237CrossRef
18.
Fabres C, Aviles G, De La Jara C et al (2003) The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med 22:695–700CrossRef
19.
20.
21.
Simpson WL Jr, Beitia LG, Mester J (2006) Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics 26(2):419–431CrossRef
22.
Wong WSF, Fung WT (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 7(3):104–107CrossRef
23.
Borges LM, Scapinelli A, de Baptista Depes D, Lippi UG, Coelho Lopes RG (2010) Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean section. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:361–364CrossRef
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 Obstet Gynecol 34:85–89CrossRef
25.
Balleyguier C, Chapron C, Chopin N, Hélénon O, Menu Y (2003) Abdominal wall and surgical scar endometriosis: results of magnetic resonance imaging. Gynecol Obstet Invest 55:220–224CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
29.
De Cian F, Delay E, Rudigoz RC, Ranchère D, Rivoire M (1999) Desmoid tumor arising in a cesarean section scar during pregnancy: monitoring and management. Gynecol Oncol 75(1):145–148CrossRef
30.
Seow KM, Hwang JL, Tsai YL, Huang LW, Lin YH, Hsieh BC (2004) Subsequent pregnancy outcome after conservative treatment of a previous caesarean scar pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(12):1167–1172CrossRef
31.
32.
Wolman I, Altman E, Faith G et al (2009) Combined clinical and ultrasonographic work-up for the diagnosis of retained products of conception. Fertil Steril. 92:1162–1164CrossRef
33.
Kamaya A, Petrovitch I, Chen B, Frederick CE, Jeffrey RB (2009) Retained products of conception: spectrum of color Doppler findings. J Ultrasound Med 28(8):1031–1041CrossRef
34.
Siegelman ES, Outwater EK (1999) Tissue characterization in the female pelvis by means of MR imaging. Radiology 212(1):5–18CrossRef
35.
Zaideh SM, Abu-Heija AT, El-Jallad MF (1998) Placenta praevia and accreta: analysis of a two-year experience. Gynecol Obstet Invest 46(2):96–98CrossRef
36.
Rossi AC, Lee RH, Chmait RH (2010) Emergency postpartum hysterectomy for uncontrolled postpartum bleeding: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 115(3):637–644CrossRef
37.
Warshak CR, Eskander R, Hull AD et al (2006) Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol 108(3 pt 1):573–581CrossRef
38.
Lim PS, Greenberg M, Edelson MI, Bell KA, Edmonds PR, Mackey AM (2011) Utility of ultrasound and MRI in prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(6):1506–1513CrossRef
39.
Baughman WC, Corteville JE, Shah RR (2008) Placenta accreta: spectrum of US and MR imaging findings. Radiographics 28(7):1905–1916CrossRef
40.
Lax A, Prince MR, Mennitt KW, Schwebach JR, Budorick NE (2007) The value of specific MRI features in the evaluation of suspected placental invasion. Magn Reson Imaging 25(1):87–93CrossRef
41.
Derman AY, Nikac V, Haberman S, Zelenko N, Opsha O, Flyer M (2011) MRI of placenta accreta: a new imaging perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(6):1514–1521CrossRef
42.
43.
Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU (2005) Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1458–1461CrossRef
44.
45.
Metadata
Title
Imaging findings of cesarean delivery complications: cesarean scar disease and much more
Authors
F. Rosa
G. Perugin
D. Schettini
N. Romano
S. Romeo
R. Podestà
A. Guastavino
A. Casaleggio
N. Gandolfo
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Hematoma
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0780-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Insights into Imaging 1/2019 Go to the issue

Educational Review

How scientific mobility can help current and future radiology research: a radiology trainee’s perspective

Original Article

The skin dose of pelvic radiographs since 1896

Original Article

The validity and applicability of CAD-RADS in the management of patients with coronary artery disease

Educational Review

The tip of the iceberg: lipomatous tumours presenting as abdominal or pelvic wall hernias

Original Article

CT density of cervical thymus, in comparison with mediastinal thymus

Guideline

Methodology for ESR iGuide content