Abstract
There is an increasing incidence of cesarean scar defect. This article will discuss and show different and variable sonographic presentations of scar niches and uterine postpartum ultrasonography with vaginal birth after cesarean section that can be confusing and many should be unaware of. This brief review aims to help practitioners to avoid confusion and be aware and acquainted with the different sonographic findings encountered in practice related to cesarean scar. It can lead to uterine rupture I labour, dehiscence in pregnancy and placenta accreta in the future pregnancy, but this is not evidence-based and not even a contraindication for pregnancy. It is neither an indication of repair for the presenting patient nor an indication to screen these patients for such complications. It is treated if associated with infertility or bleeding and not in asymptomatic ones.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri-Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T, Bourne T, Brolmann HAM, Donnez O, Dueholm M et al (2019) Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53(1):107–115
van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S, BijdeVaate AJ, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA (2014) Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 121(2):145–156
de Vaate AJB, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA (2014) Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43(4):372–382
Stegwee SI, Jordans I, van der Voet LF, van de Ven PM, Ket J, Lambalk CB, de Groot C, Hehenkamp W, Huirne J (2018) Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 125(9):1097–1108
Stegwee SI, Jordans IP, Van Der Voet LF, Bongers MY, De Groot CJ, Lambalk CB, De Leeuw RA, Hehenkamp WJ, Van De Ven PM, Bosmans JE, Pajkrt E (2019) Single-versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development—the 2close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 19(1):85
Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L (2011) Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 117:525–532
de Vacate AJB, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA (2014) Reply: Niche risk factor for uterine rupture? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44(3):371–372
Vervoort A, van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp W et al (2017) Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 125(3):326–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14733
de Vaate AJMB, Linskens IH, van der Voet LF, Twisk JW, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA (2015) Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound for the measurement of a niche in a caesarean scar and assessment of its shape. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 188:39–44
Chen Y, Chang Y, Yao S (2014) Transvaginal management of cesarean scar section diverticulum: a novel surgical treatment. Med Sci Monit 20:1395–1399. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.890642(Published 2014 Aug 8)
Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM (2017) Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril. 107(1):289–296.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033
Rheinboldt M, Osborn D, Delproposto Z (2015) Cesarean section scar ectopic pregnancy: a clinical case series. J Ultrasound 18:191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-015-0162-5
Singh N, Tripathi R, Mala YM et al (2015) Scar thickness measurement by transvaginal sonography in late second trimester and third trimester in pregnant patients with previous cesarean section: does sequential change in scar thickness with gestational age correlate with mode of delivery? J Ultrasound 18:173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-014-0116-3
Funding
This study was not funded.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Elagwany was the only contributor in the conception, planning, carrying out, analyzing and writing up of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has nothing to declare.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from the patients included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
El Agwany, A.S. Gynecological and postpartum ultrasonography of cesarean uterine scar defects: a pictorial essay. J Ultrasound 23, 613–619 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-019-00403-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-019-00403-3