O Vikhareva Osser1, L Jokubkiene, L Valentin. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Malmö University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. olgavikhareva@hotmail.com
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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