DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20204293

Cesarean scar defect and its association with clinical symptoms, uterine position and the number of cesarean sections

Madhangi V. B., Ramany C.

Abstract


Background: Caesarean scar defect (CSD), also called isthmocele or niche is a long-term complication, which can be asymptomatic or can give rise to chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia and postmenstrual spotting. The objective of this study was to assess the association of CSD with clinical symptoms, position of the uterus and the number of caesarean sections.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study done at a tertiary care teaching hospital from January 2019 to December 2019. The study included women with history of previous one or more caesarean sections with demonstrable CSD on transvaginal ultrasound. Various scar dimensions noted were width and depth of the scar. A deficiency ratio was calculated as a ratio of residual myometrium at the scar to the adjacent myometrium.

Univariate analysis was done to assess the relationship of clinical symptoms with the defect parameters and number of previous caesarean sections. Multiple logistic regression analysis was done to find out the association between symptoms and number of previous caesarean sections with the scar defect dimensions.

Results: The width, depth and deficiency ratio of the CSD were significantly higher in study subjects with a greater number of caesarean sections. Retroflexed uteri had larger CSD. There was no association of clinical features with the defect dimensions and the position of the uterus.

Conclusions: CSD dimensions and deficiency ratio correlate with the number of previous caesarean sections and the position of the uterus. There was no association of clinical symptoms with the defect parameters.


Keywords


CSD, Isthmocele, Niche, Transvaginal ultrasonography

Full Text:

PDF

References


International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Family Health Survey-4 (NFHS-4), India-Factsheet. http://rchiips.org/NFHS/pdf/NFHS4/India.pdf. Accessed on 15th July 2020.

Bij de Vaate AJ, Van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, et al. 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(3):372-82.

Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in caesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):90-7.

Antila-Långsjö RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(5):458.e1-8.

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.

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;10:166-73.

Dicle O, Küçükler C, Pirnar T, Erata Y, Posaci C. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol. 1997;7:31-4.

Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri‐Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non‐pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53:107-15.

Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:252-9.

Glavind J, Madsen LD, Uldbjerg N, Dueholm M. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single‐and double‐layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:207-12.

Ofili‐Yebovi D, Ben‐Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J et al. Deficient lower‐segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:72-7.

Shah NH, Joshi AV, Agarwal R. Cesarean scar pregnancy: scope for hysteroscopy. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8:2138-41.

Vora PH, Bansal V. Cesarean scar pregnancy: clinicians challenge. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:2101-3.

Juneja SK, Tandon P, Bhanupriya. Cesarean scar pregnancy: an upcoming challenge. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:2226-9.

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.

Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:289-92.