DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20204937

Evaluation of accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in lower uterine segment caesarean scar integrity and histomorphometric analysis of scar tissue: a prospective study

Simmi Salim, Biju Parameswaran, Deepthi Balakrishnan

Abstract


Background: Caesarean section is the most common method of delivery in the present conditions. The present study conducted to evaluate the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in lower uterine segment caesarean scar integrity and histomorphometric analysis of scar tissue.

Methods: The study was conducted in the department of OBG, SUT academy of medical sciences, Vattapara, Trivandrum, Kerala. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 144 patients were included in the study. All patients explained study procedure and informed consent was obtained. They were subjected to transvaginal ultrasound examination after that small piece of scar tissue was taken and used for histomorphic analysis. The data was analysed by SPSS (16.0) version used.

Results: In group-I 31.11% showed 40 and above fibrosis and group-II 85.0% had fibrosis 40 and above. 8 in group-I showed 0-19% of fibrosis and 17 in group-II. 0-19% whereas vicryl had a range of 0-40% and above and the rate of fibrosis compared to transvaginal sonography not showed significant difference.

Conclusions: Histomorphological analysis of scar tissue gave accurate results and it was similar to transvaginal ultrasonography results.


Keywords


Fibrosis, Transvaginal sonography, Histomorphology, Scar, Nucleus, Tissue

Full Text:

PDF

References


Fabres C, Aviles G, Jara DL, Escalone J. The caesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implication and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;25(9):1095-01.

Cheng Y. Uterine dehiscence n term patients with one previous less and fibrosis in uterine scar. Ultrasound Med. 1996;8:120-4.

Fabres C, Aviles G, Jara DL, Escalone J, Munoz JF. Comparative study of lower uterine segment afet caesarean section using ultrasound and magnetic resonance tomography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992;45(3):185-6.

Robert LJ, Beardsworth SA, Trew G. Labour following caesarean section current practice in United Kingdom. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;101: 153-5.

Arulkumaran S, Ingemarsson G, Kitchener HC, Ratnam SS. Uterine activity during spontaneous labour after previous lower segment caesarian section. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;196:933-93.

Asakura H, Nakae A, Ishikawa P, Suzuki S. Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labour evaluation by transvaginal ultrasound. J Nippon Med Sci. 2000;67(5):352-6.

Bcall ME, Clarks GS. Vaginal delivery after CS in women with unknown types of uterine scar. J Reprod Med.1984;29:31-2.

Fukunda M, Shimizu, Ihara Y, Fukunda K, Natsuyama F. Ultrasound examination of caesarian scar during pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1991; 248:129-38.

Maejia R, Escalone A, Cabello A, Videe S. Post caesarian uterine scar. Rev Chil Osctet Gynecol. 1989;54(5):307-9.

Ejub B, Vesna BC, Hadzo K, Admir R. Ultrasound evaluation of uterine scar after cesarean section. Acta Inform Med. 2012;20(3):149-53.

Nilanchali S, Reva T, Mala YM, Rashmi D. Scar thickness measurement by transvaginal sonography in late second trimester and third trimester in pregnant patents with previous cesarean section: dose sequential change in scar thickness with gestational age correlate with mode of delivery. J Ultrasound. 2015;18(2):173-8.

Cailin W, Xin C, Zhixiong M, Juan Z, Liangzi W. A preliminary study of uterine scar tissue following caesarean section. J Perinat Med. 2018;46(4):379-86.