Ultrasound Evaluation of Uterine Scar After Cesarean Section
Ejub Basic, Vesna Basic-Cetkovic, Hadzo Kozaric, Admir Rama
Acta Inform Med. 2012; 20(3): 149-153
Introduction: The rate of attempted vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery has decreased, while the success rate of such births increased. Advances in surgical techniques, the development of anesthesiology services, particularly endotracheal anesthesia, very quality postoperative care with cardiovascular, respiratory and biochemical resuscitation, significantly reduce maternal mortality and morbidity after cesarean section. Progress and development of neonatal services, and intensive care of newborns is enabled and a high survival of newborn infants. Complications after cesarean section were reduced, and the introduction of prophylaxis and therapy of powerful antibiotics, as well as materials for sewing drastically reduce all forms of puerperal infection. Goal: was to establish a measurement value of the parameters that are evaluated by ultrasound. Material and methods: Each of the measured parameters was scored. The sum of points is shown in tables. Based on the sum of points was done an estimate of the scar on the uterus after previous caesarian section and make the decision whether to complete delivery naturally or repeat cesarean section. We conducted a prospective study of 108 pregnant women. Analyzed were: shape scar thickness (thickening), continuity, border scar out, echoing the structure of the lower uterine segment and scar volume. Results: The study showed that scar thickness of 3.5 mm or more, the homogeneity of the scar, scar triangular shape, qualitatively richer perfusion, and scar volume verified by 3D technique up to10 cm are attributes of the quality of the scar. Conclusion: Based on the obtained results we conclude that ultrasound evaluation of the quality of the scar has practical application in the decision on the mode of delivery in women who had previously given birth by Caesarean section.
1. Danforth DN, Evanston I, lvy AC. The lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1949; 57: 831-841.
2. Pozovski J, Poreba R, Buchcz P. Pregnancy and labor after uterine operations. Ginekol Pol. 2003; 74: 98-101.
3. Leung AS, Farmer RM, Leung EK, Medearis AL, Paul RH. Risk factors associated with uterine rupture during trial of labor after cesarean delivery: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 1358-1363.
4. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR. Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 3-8.
5. Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101: 61-65.
6. United States Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, 1949.
7. Hebrang A, Lovrencic M. (urednici) Radiologija. 2. izdanje. «Medicinska naklada», Zagreb, 2001.
8. Popov I. The ultrasonic assessment of the cicatrix after a past cesarean section. Akush Ginekol (Sofia). 1994; 33: 10-12.
9. Flam BI. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: controversies old and new. Clin Obstet Gynccol. 1985; 138: 120-123.
10. Lavin J, Stcphens R, Miodovnik M, Barden T. Vaginal delivcry in patients with a prior caesarean scetion. Obstet Gynecol. 1982; 59: 135: 138.
11. Rozcnbcrg P, Goffinct F, Phillipe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonog-raphic measurements of lowcr uterine segment to assess risk of defeets of scarred uterus. Lancet. 1996; 347(8997): 281: 1.
12. Lebedev VA, Strizhakov AN, Zhelnezov BI. Echographic and morphological parallels in the evaluation of the condition of the uterine scar. Akush Ginekol. 1991; 8: 44-49.
13. Flamm BL, Lim OW, Jones C, Fallon D, Newman LA, Mantis JK. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: results of a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 158: 1079-1084.
14. Wang, CB, Chiu WWC, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2009; 34(1): 85-89.