Ultrasound evaluation of caesarean section uterine scar and its correlation to intraoperative scar thickness

Anusha Leelapalli; Barsha Priyadarshinee

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242803

Authors

Anusha Leelapalli Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Rama Chandra Bhanja Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India
Barsha Priyadarshinee Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Rama Chandra Bhanja Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242803

Keywords:

Lower uterine segment, Sonography, Scar thickness, Interpregnancy interval, Caesarean section

Abstract

Background: The number of caesarean sections performed has skyrocketed in recent decades. The most frequent indication for a caesarean section is a previous caesarean birth. The goal of the current study was to compare the lower uterine scar thickness in pregnant with history of previous caesarean delivery as determined by sonography with the actual scar condition at the time of surgery.

Methods: The study involved 100 pregnant women between gestational age of 35 completed weeks and 38 weeks with history of previous caesarean delivery and were attended to OPD for antenatal checkups in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, SCBMCH, over a period of one year from 1st June 2019 till 31st June 2020. Who underwent transabdominal ultrasonography. The lower uterine segment [LUS] thickness was measured by measuring the interphases between the myometrium, the Chori amniotic membrane, and the bladder wall. The patients were followed up and correlated ultrasound findings of lower uterine segment thickness with intra-operative finding of lower uterine segment thickness. Pearson correlation is the statistical method used to measure correlation.

Results: Correlation of ultrasound scar thickness and intra-operative scar thickness was evaluated by correlation coefficient (r value) i.e., 0.405 and p value i.e., 0.001.

Conclusion: According to the current study, decreased uterine scar thickness, as determined by sonography, is a reliable indicator of scar defect in women who have had prior caesarean operations. Thus, sonographic measurement of the thickness of the lower uterine segment can properly assess scar status and the choice to offer women a trial of vaginal birth and precautions can be taken.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Birth injury help center: Cesarean section history, 2020 available at https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.

National Family Health Survey (NFHS 4) 2015-16 India report: International institute for population sciences (IIPS) and ICF. 2017;4:209.

National Family Health Survey (NFHS 5) 2019-21 India report. suggested citation:international institute for population sciences (IIPS). 2022;375(1):268.

Singh SK, Vishwakarma D, Sharma SK. Prevalence and determinants of voluntary caesarean deliveries and socioeconomic inequalities in India. Clinical epidemiology and global health. 2020;8:335-42.

Bhowmik J, Kyal A, Das I, Berwal V, Das PK, Mukhopadhyay P. Pregnancy with previous caesarean section: an overview of adverse fetomaternal sequelae. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(5):1817-21.

Singh N, Tripathi R, Mala YM, Dixit R. Scar thickness measurement by transvaginal sonography in late second trimester and third trimester in pregnant patient with previous caesarean section: does sequential change in scar thickness with gestational age correlate with mode of delivery? J Ultrasound. 2015;18(2):173-8.

Lauren M. Hatstat, BS, RDMS, RVT. Sonographic assessment of uterine dehiscence during pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section: A case series. journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography. 2016;32(5):283-6.

Janoudi G, Kelly S, Yasseen A, Hamam H, Moretti F, Walker M. Factors associated with increased rates of caesarean section in women with advanced maternal age. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;37(6):517-26.

Matorras R, Berreteaga L, Laínz L, Exposito A, Martínez L. Influence of caesarean section- pregnancy interval on uterine rupture risk and IVF pregnancy rates. Reprod biomed online. 2019;39(5):809-18.

Jani HT, Sud S, Jeyaseelan S. Impact of interpregnancy interval on maternal and perinatal outcomes. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2023;12(10):2986-92.

Singh SM, Singh T, Thakur V. Prospective study of primary cesarean section in multigravida. Ind J Obgyn. 2023;10(1):204-8.

Begum T, Rahman A, Nababan H, Hoque DME, Khan AF, Ali T, et al. Indications and determinants of caesarean section delivery. Evidence from a population-based study in Matlab, Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2015;12(11):188074.

Bassic E, Cetkovic VB, Kozaric H, Rama A. Ultrasound evaluation of uterine scar after caesarean section. Acta Inform Med. 2012;20(3):149-53.

Jha NNS, Maheshwari S, Barala S. Ultrasonographic assessment of strength of previous caesarean section scar during pregnancy. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(4):1458-63.

Lei Ye, Wen Cao, Jing Yao, Ge Peng, Rong Zhou. Systematic review of the effects of birth spacing after caesarean section on maternal and perinatal outcomes. Int J Gynaecol obstet. 2019;147(1):19-28.

Vedantham H, Jahagirdar NJN, Ramadevi N, Kamineni V, Saranu S. A study of correlation of antenatal uterine scar thickness by transabdominal ultrasound with intraoperative lower uterine segment scar grading in elective repeat caesarean delivery. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8(12):4878-84.

Singh OO, Pukhrambam GD, Devi AB, Singh MA. Abnormal placentation following previous caesarean section delivery-a ten-year study in peripartum hysterectomy cases. J Evid Based Med Health. 2020;7(4):168-72.

Morang K, Lotha L, Konda KR. Intraoperative surgical difficulties encountered during repeat caesarean section in a tertiary care centre in Northeast India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2021;10(11):4144-9.

Alshehri KA, Ammar AA, Aldhubabian MA, Zanbaqi MSA, Felimban AA, Alshuaibi MK, et al. Outcomes and complications after repeat cesarean Sections among King Abdulaziz university hospital patients. Mater Sociomed. 2019;31(2):119-24.

Mishra A, Gawade S, Chaudhari S. Perioperative complications with recurrent caesarean section. Int J Gynaecol. 2020;13(2):53-8.

Constantin zwergel, Constantin S, Von kaisenberg. Maternal and fetal risks in higher multiple caesarean deliveries, eds. Georg Schmölzer’s Recent advances in caesarean delivery. Intechopen edited volume, chapter 3.canada, 2020:38-52.

Stegwee SI, Jordans IPM, Voet LF, Bongers MY, Groot CJMC, Lambalk B. Single versus double layer closure of caesarean scar in the prevention of gynaecology symptoms in relation to niche development the 2 Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2019;19:85.

Yadav B, Pandey S. Study of knowledge, attitude and practice regarding birth spacing and methods available for spacing in rural Haryana, India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(4):1389-93.

Goldstuck ND, Steyn PS. Intrauterine contraception after caesarean section and during lactation. Int J Womens health. 2013;5:811-8.