Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Sectio Caesarea | Research

The degree of risk factor and accumulation effect for large niche in individuals after cesarean section

Authors: Jing Wang, Ye He, Mengyuan Zhang, Fen Huang, Yuanyuan Wu, Mingjun Hu, Yuanyuan Yang, Wenwen Wei, Qiushi Pang, Zhaolian Wei

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The risk factors associated with niche on the cesarean scar have been reported, however, the degree of these factors associated with large niche and the accumulation effects of these risk factors on the development of large niche are unclear.

Methods

Large niche was evaluated by transvaginal sonography during mid-follicular phase. Logistic regression model was used to assess 32 risk factors by univariate analysis. Then, a scoring model based on the screened risk factors was generated. The performance of this model was evaluated by area under curve (AUC). Finally, the scoring model was applied in 123 women to assess the external validation.

Result(s)

In the training cohort study, 163 women were diagnosed with large niche. The final scoring model involves eight risk factors with the rating scores including age at delivery (30–34 years: 1 point; ≥ 35 years: 4.5 points), retroflexed uterus (8.5 points), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (4.5 points), twice CSs (4.0 points), postpartum endometritis (4.5 points), premature rupture of membranes (2.5 points), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (mild to moderate: 3 points; severe: 6.5 points), and cervical dilatation (1-3 cm: 2.0 points; 4-10 cm: 4.5 points). The accumulation effect with a cut-off value of 8.0 in the scoring was associated with the large niche after CS.

Conclusion(s)

This is the first scoring model to objectively quantify the risk of a large niche after CS. Optimal risk factors control by avoiding high score factors and multiple factors accumulation may eliminate the risk of large niche development.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, Rozenberg S. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23(3):289–92.CrossRefPubMed Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, Rozenberg S. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23(3):289–92.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Wang J, Pang Q, Wei W, Cheng L, Huang F, Cao Y, Hu M, Yan S, He Y, Wei Z. Definition of large niche after Cesarean section based on prediction of postmenstrual spotting: Chinese cohort study in non-pregnant women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;59(4):450–6.CrossRefPubMed Wang J, Pang Q, Wei W, Cheng L, Huang F, Cao Y, Hu M, Yan S, He Y, Wei Z. Definition of large niche after Cesarean section based on prediction of postmenstrual spotting: Chinese cohort study in non-pregnant women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;59(4):450–6.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bij de Vaate AJ. van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):372–82. Bij de Vaate AJ. van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):372–82.
4.
go back to reference Vervoort AJMW, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJK, Brölmann HAM, Mol BWJ, Huirne JAF. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(12):2695–702.PubMedPubMedCentral Vervoort AJMW, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJK, Brölmann HAM, Mol BWJ, Huirne JAF. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(12):2695–702.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Stegwee SI, Jordans I, van der Voet LF, van de Ven PM, Ket J, Lambalk CB, de Groot C, Hehenkamp W, Huirne J. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125(9):1097–108.CrossRefPubMed Stegwee SI, Jordans I, van der Voet LF, van de Ven PM, Ket J, Lambalk CB, de Groot C, Hehenkamp W, Huirne J. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125(9):1097–108.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Kataoka S, Tanuma F, Iwaki Y, Iwaki K, Fujii T, Fujimoto T. Comparison of the primary cesarean hysterotomy scars after single- and double-layer interrupted closure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(12):1352–8.CrossRefPubMed Kataoka S, Tanuma F, Iwaki Y, Iwaki K, Fujii T, Fujimoto T. Comparison of the primary cesarean hysterotomy scars after single- and double-layer interrupted closure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(12):1352–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Stegwee SI, van der Voet LF, Ben AJ, de Leeuw RA, van de Ven PM, Duijnhoven RG, Bongers MY, Lambalk CB, de Groot C, Huirne J. Effect of single- versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial. BJOG. 2021;128(5):866–78.CrossRefPubMed Stegwee SI, van der Voet LF, Ben AJ, de Leeuw RA, van de Ven PM, Duijnhoven RG, Bongers MY, Lambalk CB, de Groot C, Huirne J. Effect of single- versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial. BJOG. 2021;128(5):866–78.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J, Jurkovic D. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(1):72–7.CrossRefPubMed Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J, Jurkovic D. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(1):72–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(1):61–5.PubMed Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(1):61–5.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(10):1105–15.CrossRefPubMed Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(10):1105–15.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Lees C, Brolmann HA, et al: Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 39(3):252–259. Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Lees C, Brolmann HA, et al: Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 39(3):252–259.
12.
go back to reference Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. 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. 2016;205:141–5.CrossRefPubMed Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. 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. 2016;205:141–5.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Antila-Langsjo RM, Maenpaa JU, Huhtala HS, Tomas EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219(5):458 e451–458 e458. Antila-Langsjo RM, Maenpaa JU, Huhtala HS, Tomas EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219(5):458 e451–458 e458.
14.
go back to reference Di Spiezio SA, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(5):578–83.CrossRef Di Spiezio SA, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(5):578–83.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Vachon-Marceau C, Demers S, Bujold E, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Pasquier JC, Girard M, Chaillet N, Boulvain M, Jastrow N. Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(1):65 e61–65 e65. Vachon-Marceau C, Demers S, Bujold E, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Pasquier JC, Girard M, Chaillet N, Boulvain M, Jastrow N. Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(1):65 e61–65 e65.
16.
go back to reference 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(1):85–9.CrossRefPubMed 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(1):85–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference El Agwany AS. Gynecological and postpartum ultrasonography of cesarean uterine scar defects: a pictorial essay. J Ultrasound. 2020;23(4):613–9.CrossRefPubMed El Agwany AS. Gynecological and postpartum ultrasonography of cesarean uterine scar defects: a pictorial essay. J Ultrasound. 2020;23(4):613–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1119–26.CrossRefPubMed Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1119–26.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Sholapurkar SL. Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (Niche): detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(3):166–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sholapurkar SL. Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (Niche): detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(3):166–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri-Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T, Bourne T, Brolmann HAM, Donnez O, Dueholm M, et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(1):107–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri-Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T, Bourne T, Brolmann HAM, Donnez O, Dueholm M, et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(1):107–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The degree of risk factor and accumulation effect for large niche in individuals after cesarean section
Authors
Jing Wang
Ye He
Mengyuan Zhang
Fen Huang
Yuanyuan Wu
Mingjun Hu
Yuanyuan Yang
Wenwen Wei
Qiushi Pang
Zhaolian Wei
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-06228-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2024 Go to the issue