Literature DB >> 20034000

Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement.

O Vikhareva Osser1, L Jokubkiene, L Valentin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the agreement between transvaginal ultrasound examinations performed before and at saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) with regard to number, size and shape of Cesarean section (CS) scar defects.
METHODS: In all, 108 women underwent transvaginal ultrasound examination with SCSH at least 6 months after CS: 68 had undergone one CS, 32 two CSs and eight women had undergone at least three CSs. The ultrasound examiner was blinded to the number of CSs and to the obstetric history. The number and shape of CS scar defects were determined subjectively, and any scar defect was estimated subjectively to be large or not large. Measurements of the scar defects were also taken. Results obtained before and at SCSH were compared.
RESULTS: Most scar defects were triangular in shape. The shape did not change at SCSH, but the ultrasound examiner found it easier to delineate the borders of the scar defects at SCSH than at unenhanced ultrasound examination. More scar defects were seen and more scar defects were classified as large at SCSH than before: among the 100 women who had undergone one or two CSs, 16 additional women had large defects at SCSH, whereas no woman with a large defect before SCSH had no defect or only a small defect at SCSH. The length and height of the defects were larger at SCSH than before: mean difference 2 mm and 1 mm in women who had undergone one CS, and mean difference 4 mm and 2 mm in the lowest-positioned scar in women who had undergone two CSs.
CONCLUSIONS: In non-pregnant women CS scars were better evaluated at SCSH than at unenhanced ultrasound examination, because the demarcations of scar defects were more clearly delineated at SCSH than before. More defects were detected and more defects were classified as large at SCSH.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20034000     DOI: 10.1002/uog.7496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  17 in total

Review 1.  Post-caesarean Niche (Isthmocele) in Uterine Scar: An Update.

Authors:  Vidushi Kulshrestha; Nutan Agarwal; Garima Kachhawa
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2020-09-21

2.  Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of uterine scar after previous caesarean section: comparison with 3T-magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging.

Authors:  Federica Fiocchi; Elisabetta Petrella; Luca Nocetti; Serena Currà; Guido Ligabue; Tiziana Costi; Pietro Torricelli; Fabio Facchinetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean scar defect.

Authors:  Yingyu Dou; Da Zeng; Zi'ang Zou; Yajun Wan; Dabao Xu; Songshu Xiao
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 2.344

4.  Laparoscopic correction of the uterine muscle loss in the scar after a Caesarean section delivery.

Authors:  Michał Ciebiera; Grzegorz Jakiel; Aneta Słabuszewska-Jóźwiak
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 1.195

5.  Successful management of a cesarean scar defect with dehiscence of the uterine incision by using wound lavage.

Authors:  Akinori Ida; Yoko Kubota; Maiko Nosaka; Koichi Ito; Hiroshi Kato; Yoshiyuki Tsuji
Journal:  Case Rep Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11-06

6.  Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Ajmw Vervoort; L F van der Voet; Wjk Hehenkamp; A L Thurkow; Pjm van Kesteren; H Quartero; W Kuchenbecker; M Bongers; P Geomini; Lhm de Vleeschouwer; Mha van Hooff; H van Vliet; S Veersema; W B Renes; K Oude Rengerink; S E Zwolsman; Ham Brölmann; Bwj Mol; Jaf Huirne
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  Outcomes after Hysteroscopic Treatment of Symptomatic Isthmoceles in Patients with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Pelvic Pain: A Prospective Case Series.

Authors:  Ana Vegas Carrillo de Albornoz; Irene López Carrasco; Nerea Montero Pastor; Carmen Martín Blanco; María Miró Matos; Luis Alonso Pacheco; Enrique Moratalla Bartolomé
Journal:  Int J Fertil Steril       Date:  2019-04-27

8.  Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development.

Authors:  A J M W Vervoort; L B Uittenbogaard; W J K Hehenkamp; H A M Brölmann; B W J Mol; J A F Huirne
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  A J M W Vervoort; L F Van der Voet; M Witmer; A L Thurkow; C M Radder; P J M van Kesteren; H W P Quartero; W K H Kuchenbecker; M Y Bongers; P M A J Geomini; L H M de Vleeschouwer; M H A van Hooff; H A A M van Vliet; S Veersema; W B Renes; H S van Meurs; J Bosmans; K Oude Rengerink; H A M Brölmann; B W J Mol; J A F Huirne
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 10.  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
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2019-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.