Sonographic assessment of uterine scar thickness and associated factors among pregnant women with previous caesarean sections at a tertiary hospital in Tanzania
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20252715Keywords:
Uterine scar thickness, Caesarian section, Obstetric ultrasoundAbstract
Background: Uterine scar thickness has a practical application on the safe mode of delivery for pregnant woman with previous cesarean section (CS) lower uterine segment (LUS) scar. The study aimed to assess sonographic uterine scar thickness and associated factors among pregnant women with previous CS at a tertiary hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania.
Methods: An analytical cross-sectional analytical study was carried out at a tertiary hospital in Mwanza, Tanzania that included pregnant women with previous CS at term (≥ 36 weeks of gestation). Transabdominal obstetric ultrasound was performed. A uterine scar thickness was categorized as thin or thick using a cut off of 2.5 mm. Data were presented using descriptive statistics and analysed. A p value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: About 113 out of 400 women (28.3%) had thin uterine scars. Inter-pregnancy interval (p<0.001), history of wound infection (p=0.01) and placenta location (p=0.001) were significant factors associated with uterine scar thickness. On adjusted logistic regression analysis, inter-pregnancy interval [aOR (95% CI) =2.35 (1.38-3.99), p=0.002], estimated fetal weight [aOR (95% CI) =0.54 (0.34-0.87), p=0.01] and anterior placenta location [aOR (95% CI) =0.55 (0.34-0.90), p=0.02] were factors most likely to predict uterine scar thickness.
Conclusions: Uterine scar thickness assessment by sonography in pregnant women with previous cesarean sections can be easily integrated in an obstetric ultrasound. We recommend its routine application, and in combination with risk factors may guide decision on the mode of delivery and help prevent adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.
Metrics
References
Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
Motomura K, Ganchimeg T, Nagata C, Ota E, Vogel JP, Betran AP, et al. Incidence and outcomes of uterine rupture among women with prior caesarean section: WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):44093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44093
Tanos V, Toney ZA. Uterine scar rupture-Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;59:115-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.01.009
Pario S, Omer S, Abbasi S, Pario A, Suboohi S, Baig RJ. Ultrasound assessment of cesarean section scar and its correlation to intraoperative scar status. Pakistan J Med Heal Sci. 2022;16(10):942-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs221610942
Swift BE, Shah PS, Farine D. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(7):830-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13585
Göksu M, Kadiroğulları P, Seçkin KD, Şahin B, Başkıran Y. Evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in pregnant women with previous cesarean section and pain at term. Zeynep Kamil Med J. 2024;55(4):187-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/zkmj.2024.94940
Ibrahim MS, El-Omda FA. Transvaginal ultrasonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness and prediction of uterine rupture in cases of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Al-Azhar Int Med J. 2023;4(1):3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58675/2682-339X.1616
Afzal S, Masroor I, Amin A, Majeed A. Ultrasound evaluation of scar thickness for prediction of uterine dehiscence in term women with previous caesarean sections. Pak J Med Sci. 2024 Aug;40(7):1361-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.7.8712
Ikoro C, Omietimi JE, Kiridi EK, Fumudoh B, Aigere EOS, Oriji PC, et al. Lower uterine segment scar thickness as a predictor of successful vaginal birth after caesarean section at the Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa: a prospective cohort study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2023;12:44-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20223473
Asif F, Zafar S, Zafar T, Majeed T, Mahmood Z. Diagnostic accuracy of lower uterine segment scar thickness ≤1.6 mm in prediction of scar dehiscence in patients with previous one LSCS who are undergoing repeat LSCS after trial of labour taking intraoperative findings as gold standard. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(10):2682-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs2115102682
Ganapathi T, Chaudhari HK. Ultrasonographic measurement of uterine lower segment scar thickness in cases of previous one caesarean section and obstetric outcome. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(11):4455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20184488
Madoli K, Ilunga-Mbaya E, Maroyi R, Nadine N, Mukanga O, Mukwege D, et al. Associated factors with vaginal delivery on a uni-or bi-scar uterus in a low-resource setting. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;13(3):499-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2023.133046
Al Naimi A, Mouzakiti N, Eißmann C, Louwen F, Bahlmann F. Does the appearance of the cutaneous scar after cesarean section reflect the residual myometrial thickness? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303:847-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05943-2
Alalaf SK, Mansour TM, Sileem SA, Shabila NP. Intrapartum ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness in parturients with previous scar in labor: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04747-3
Risager JK, Uldbjerg N, Glavind J. Cesarean scar thickness in non-pregnant women as a risk factor for uterine rupture. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2022;35(2):389-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1719065
Jadoon S, Gul H, Hakim N. Frequency of uterine scar dehiscence positive scar in women with previous one cesarean section. Indus J Biosci Res. 2025;3(2):239-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i2.656
El-Setiha NA, Fathey AA, Hassanein SA, El-Halaby AA, ElDamaty WG. Inter-pregnancy interval effect on lower uterine segment cesarean scar thickness by ultrasound measurement. Afr J Bio Sci. 2024;6(7):153-9.
Meuleman SK, Min N, Hehenkamp WJ, Uiterweer EP, Huirne JA, de Leeuw RA. The definition, diagnosis, and symptoms of the uterine niche- a systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2023;90:102390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102390
Jani HT, Sud S, Jeyaseelan S. Impact of interpregnancy interval on maternal and perinatal outcomes. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2023;12(10):2987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20232934
Verberkt C, Lemmers M, de Vries R, Stegwee SI, de Leeuw RA, Huirne JA. Aetiology, risk factors and preventive strategies for niche development: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2023;90:102363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102363
Wu Y, Kataria Y, Wang Z, Ming WK, Ellervik C. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after a cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2517-y
Khatri RA, Chand A, Thapa M, Thapa S, Khadka S. Acceptance of vaginal birth after caesarean section trial in Shree Birendra Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal: a descriptive cross-sectional study. J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021;59(233):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.5781
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
