Assessment and comparison of clinical scar tenderness and imaging scar thickness for prediction of intraoperative scar integrity in pregnant patients with previous caesarean section
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253537Keywords:
Scar dehiscence, Scar rupture, Scar tenderness, Scar thicknessAbstract
Background: Caesarean delivery rates have significantly risen over the past few decades, leading to an increase in the number of women with previous caesarean scars. In subsequent pregnancies, the integrity of uterine scar becomes an essential factor in decision making regarding the mode of delivery. Accurate assessment of scar integrity enables obstetricians to predict and mitigate the risks associated with vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Several studies have independently demonstrated the reliability of scar tenderness and scar thickness in assessing uterine scar integrity; however, this study compares both these parameters for better prediction of the intraoperative scar integrity.
Methods: 100 patients with history of previous LSCS were assessed for scar tenderness and third trimester’s sonographic LUS scar thickness and later on were taken up for caesarean section. Findings were correlated with intra-operative scar condition, whether the scar was intact or was compromised (scar dehiscence or rupture).
Results: Scar thickness <2.5 mm demonstrated a sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 85%, positive predictive value of 60%, negative predictive value of 80%. Scar tenderness alone showed sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 71%, PPV of 60% and NPV of 82%. However, when both parameters were considered as combined criteria, the sensitivity improved to 74% and specificity increased to 96%, a higher PPV of 93% and an NPV of 86%.
Conclusions: Combined assessment of clinical and sonographic parameters provides a more reliable method for identifying women at risk of uterine scar compromise during subsequent deliveries.
Metrics
References
Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJ, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in cesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7
Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in cesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
Landon MB, Lynch CD. Optimal timing and mode of delivery after cesarean with previous uterine rupture. -Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(2):241–50.
Valentin L. Prediction of scar integrity and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(2):285-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003
Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Laroche L, Gagnon G, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32(4):321-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34475-9
Kok N, Ruiter L, Hof M, Ravelli AC, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during trial of labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(2):132-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12479
Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet. 1996;347(8997):281-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90464-X
Cheung VYT. Sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness: correlation with uterine scar defect. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(1):64-9.
Jastrow N, Bujold E. Uterine scar assessment: current role and future prospects. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;59:95-103.
Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, Moore L, Jastrow N, Demers S, et al. Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(06):465-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1304829
Vedantham H, Jahagirdar NJ, 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 cesarean delivery. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;26:4878-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20195338
Gupta S, Boppudi S, Gupta T, Gupta N. Role of 3D ultrasound in objective evaluation of cesarean scar. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2020/43074.13494
Paquette K, Markey S, Roberge S, Girard M, Bujold E, Demers S. First and third trimester uterine scar thickness in women with previous cesarean: a prospective comparative study. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2019;41(1):59-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.02.020
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
Afzal S, Masroor I, Amin A, Majeed A. Ultrasound evaluation of scar thickness for prediction of uterine dehiscence in term women with previous cesarean sections. Pak J Med Sci. 2024;40(7):1361-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.7.8712
Patil P, Mitra N, Batni S, Jain M, Sinha S. Comparison of clinical and radiological findings for the prediction of scar integrity in women with previous lower segment cesarean sections. Cureus. 2023;15(8):e4397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43976
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
