Cesarean section scar in 3 T magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound: image characteristics and comparison of the methods
Uterine rupture during labor is a rare but life-threatening complication after previous cesarean section (CS). Prenatal risk is assessed using ultrasound thickness measurement of the lower uterine segment (LUS). Due to inhomogeneous study results, however, clinical obstetrics still lacks for standard protocols and reliable reference values. As 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not yet been sufficiently studied regarding LUS diagnostics after previous CS, we sought to evaluate its feasibility focusing on thickness measurements and typical characteristics of the CS-scar region in comparison to ultrasound and the intraoperative status.
In this prospective study, 25 asymptomatic patients with one previous CS and inconspicuous ultrasound findings were included. An additional 3 T MRI with either a T2-weighted Turbo-Spin-Echo or a Half Fourier-Acquired-Single-shot-Turbo-spin-Echo sequence in a sagittal orientation was performed. We analyzed categorical image quality, inter- and intra-rater reliability as well as anatomy, morphology and thickness of the LUS. Results were compared to ultrasound and intraoperative findings.
MRI provided good to excellent image quality in all patients. The imaged structures presented with a high variability in anatomy and morphology. Image characteristics indicating the uterine scar were only found in 11/25 (44%) patients. LUS thickness measurements with MRI showed good inter- and intra-rater reliability but poor agreement with ultrasound.
MRI is appropriate for additional LUS diagnostics in patients with previous CS. The strong individual variability of LUS-anatomy and morphology might explain the difficulties in establishing uniform diagnostic standards after CS.
KeywordsCesarean section Prenatal diagnosis Magnetic resonance imaging Ultrasonography Uterine rupture
JH: design/methods/administration of the study, data acquisition: MRI, ultrasound and clinical data, measurements, analyzing and interpreting data, writing the manuscript; ME: administration, acquiring MRI data, MRI measurements; KB: data acquisition: MRI, MRI measurements; MG: supervision, support in writing the manuscript; PS: concept/methods, administration, data acquisition: MRI, writing the manuscript; SS-P: data acquisition: ultrasound, analyzing data/interpretations; HS: design/concept, analyzing data/interpretations, ;supervision, writing the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, Janik R, Nygren P, Walker M, McDonagh M (2010) Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full rep) (191):1–397Google Scholar
- 6.Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FMP, Nastri CO, Filho FM (2009) Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33(3):301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, de Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt E (2013) Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42(2):132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Cheung Vincent Y T, Constantinescu OC, Ahluwalia BS (2004) Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. J Ultrasound Med Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med 23(11):1441–1447Google Scholar
- 16.Singh N, Tripathi R, Mala YM, Dixit R, Tyagi S, Batra A (2013) Comparison of scar thickness measurements using trans-vaginal sonography and MRI in cases of pregnancy with previous caesarean section. Do they correlate with actual scar thickness? J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol 33(8):810–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. Leitlinien, Empfehlungen, Stellungnahmen (Stand August 2010): Schwangerenbetreuung und Geburtseinleitung bei Zustand nach KaiserschnittGoogle Scholar
- 23.Singh N, Tripathi R, Mala YM, Dixit R (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(2):173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Indraccolo U, Scutiero G, Matteo M, Mastricci AL, Barone I, Greco P (2015) Correlations between sonographically measured and actual incision site thickness of lower uterine segment after repeated caesarean section. Minerva Ginecol 67(3):225–229Google Scholar