Introduction: With the rise in Caesarean deliveries, complications related to the procedure are increasingly encountered. Sonography has an indispensable role in the assessment of these complications and is often the first-line investigation of choice.Topic description: Part 2 of this pictorial review summarises the non-pregnant and pregnancy-related complications of Caesarean deliveries. Discussion: Non-pregnant complications include Caesarean scar defects, scar endometriosis and malpositioned intrauterine devices. Complications related to future gestations include scar ectopic pregnancy, abnormal placentation and intrapartum uterine dehiscence or rupture. Key sonographic features of these conditions are illustrated. Pitfalls, mimics, limitations and indications for cross-sectional imaging are discussed. Conclusion: Sound knowledge of the sonographic features of common non-pregnant and pregnancy-related complications of Caesarean delivery will facilitate accurate diagnosis, timely management and improved patient outcomes.
Introduction: With the rise in Caesarean deliveries, complications related to the procedure are increasingly encountered. Sonography has an indispensable role in the assessment of these complications and is often the first-line investigation of choice.Topic description: Part 2 of this pictorial review summarises the non-pregnant and pregnancy-related complications of Caesarean deliveries. Discussion: Non-pregnant complications include Caesarean scar defects, scar endometriosis and malpositioned intrauterine devices. Complications related to future gestations include scar ectopic pregnancy, abnormal placentation and intrapartum uterine dehiscence or rupture. Key sonographic features of these conditions are illustrated. Pitfalls, mimics, limitations and indications for cross-sectional imaging are discussed. Conclusion: Sound knowledge of the sonographic features of common non-pregnant and pregnancy-related complications of Caesarean delivery will facilitate accurate diagnosis, timely management and improved patient outcomes.
Authors: A J M Bij de Vaate; H A M Brölmann; L F van der Voet; J W van der Slikke; S Veersema; J A F Huirne Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: A J M Bij de Vaate; L F van der Voet; O Naji; M Witmer; S Veersema; H A M Brölmann; T Bourne; J A F Huirne Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Hillary E Boortz; Daniel J A Margolis; Nagesh Ragavendra; Maitraya K Patel; Barbara M Kadell Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Rita Gidwaney; Ruth L Badler; Benjamin L Yam; John J Hines; Vlada Alexeeva; Virginia Donovan; Douglas S Katz Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Ties Boerma; Carine Ronsmans; Dessalegn Y Melesse; Aluisio J D Barros; Fernando C Barros; Liang Juan; Ann-Beth Moller; Lale Say; Ahmad Reza Hosseinpoor; Mu Yi; Dácio de Lyra Rabello Neto; Marleen Temmerman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: I P M Jordans; R A de Leeuw; S I Stegwee; N N Amso; P N Barri-Soldevila; T van den Bosch; T Bourne; H A M Brölmann; O Donnez; M Dueholm; W J K Hehenkamp; N Jastrow; D Jurkovic; R Mashiach; O Naji; I Streuli; D Timmerman; L F van der Voet; J A F Huirne Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.299