Advertisement

The effect of alpha lipoic acid on uterine wound healing after primary cesarean section: a triple-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group randomized clinical trial

  • Hazem Sammour
  • Abdellatif Elkholy
  • Radwa RasheedyEmail author
  • Ebtesam Fadel
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effect of alpha lipoic acid (ALA) on uterine wound healing after primary cesarean section (CS).

Methods

A parallel-group, triple-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Cairo, Egypt, involving 102 women undergoing pre-labor primary CS. The participants were randomly assigned using a computer-generated list of random numbers to receive oral ALA or a placebo twice daily for 6 weeks after CS. Allocation to either group was in a 1:1 ratio by an independent statistician (not involved in the treatment or data collection). The primary outcome was the presence of CS defect and measuring its depth and width. Secondary outcomes were measurements of the anterior myometrial and residual myometrium thicknesses, healing ratio and the presence of intrauterine adhesions. Assessment was done using saline contrast sonohysterography.

Results

Twenty (39.2%) women in the treatment group and ten (19.6%) controls had no niche (P value = 0.03, 95% CI − 0.388, − 0.0037). The absolute and relative risk reduction of forming a niche was 19.61% and 24.39%, respectively. The number of women needed to treat was five to avoid one niche formation. ALA use was associated with gastrointestinal upset in only three participants; however, none of the women withdrew during the study.

Conclusion

In women undergoing primary CS, the administration of ALA for 6 weeks postpartum improved uterine healing and decreased the incidence of scar niche.

Keywords

Cesarean-section scar Uterine scar healing Effect of alpha lipoic acid on uterine scar Scar niche Healing ratio Saline contrast sonohysterography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participants of this study.

Author contributions

SH contributed in literature search, study design, data analysis, data interpretation, and revised the article; EA contributed in literature search, study design, data analysis, data interpretation, and revised the article. RR contributed in literature search, study design, data analysis, data interpretation, and drafted the article; and FE was responsible for data collection.

Funding

No financial support was provided for the conduct of the research or authorship of this article, also there was no institutional or research funding provided towards the article processing or publication charges by the journal.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and publication of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtain SC, Matthews TJ (2015) Births: final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 64(1):1–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR (2016) The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 11(2):e0148343.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barber EL, Lundsberg L, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL (2011) Contributing indications to the rising cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 118(1):29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e5f65 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebrashy AE, Kassab A, Nada A, Saleh WF, Soliman A (2011) Caesarean section in a university and general tertiary hospitals in Cairo; Egypt: rates, indications and limits. Kasr Al Aini J Obstet Gynecol 2(1):20–26Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 21(2):98–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209abf0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A (2012) Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(1):14–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, Madri JA, Buhimschi IA (2010) Myometrial wound healing post-cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol 177(1):197–207.  https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.091209 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Micili SC, Goker A, Sayin O, Akokay P, Ergur BU (2013) The effect of lipoic acid on wound healing in a full thickness uterine injury model in rats. J Mol Histol 44(3):339–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10735-013-9485-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cherng S, Young J, Ma H (2008) Alpha-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA). J Am Sci 4(4):7–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fan X, Krieg S, Kuo CJ, Wiegand SJ, Rabinovitch M, Druzin ML, Brenner RM, Giudice LC, Nayak NR (2008) VEGF blockade inhibits angiogenesis and reepithelialization of endometrium. FASEB J 22:3571e–3580eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin N, Li X, Song T, Wang J, Meng K, Yang J, Hou X, Dai J, Hu Y (2012) The effect of collagen-binding vascular endothelial growth factor on the remodeling of scarred rat uterus following full-thickness injury. Biomaterials 33:1801–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costantino M, Guaraldi C, Costantino D, de Grazia S, Unfer V (2014) Peripheral neuropathy in obstetrics: efficacy and safety of α-lipoic acid supplementation. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18(18):2766–2771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Tucci C, Di Feliciantonio M, Vena F, Capone C, Schiavi MC, Pietrangeli D, Muzii L, Panici PB (2018) Alpha lipoic acid in obstetrics and gynecology. Gynecol Endocrinol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2018.1462320 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costantino D, Guaraldi C, Costantino M, Boubous VE (2015) Use of alpha-lipoic acid and omega-3 in postpartum pain treatment. Minerva Ginecol 67(5):465–473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Awadalla A (2016) Monitoring of upward trend of C-sections performed per year at an Egyptian University Maternity Hospital: an economic barrier in low-income countries. Int J Obstet Gynaecol Res 3(3):257–270Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L (2010) Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sono graphic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7496 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El-Mazny A, Abou-Salem N, El-Khayat W, Farouk A (2011) Diagnostic correlation between sonohysterography and hysteroscopy in the assessment of uterine cavity after cesarean section. Middle East Fertil Soc J 16(1):72–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2010.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein SR (1996) Saline infusion sonohysterography. Clin Obstet Gynecol 39(1):248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Vaate-Bij AJM, Brölmann HAM, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JAF (2011) Ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sevket O, Ates S, Molla T, Ozkal F, Uysal O, Dansuk R (2014) Hydrosono graphic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 125(3):219–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mıcılı SC, Göker A, Sayın O, Akokay P, Ergür BU (2013) Lipoic acid decreases peritoneal adhesion formation in a rat uterine scar model. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 14(2):76–80.  https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2013.22129 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yildiz H, Durmus AS, Simsek H (2011) Surgery-induced changes in red blood cell and plasma lipid peroxidation, enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants, and blood hematology of female rats: protective role of methylene blue and vitamin E. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 155:89–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Voet LF, de Vaate-Bij AM, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA (2014) Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 121(2):236–244.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vervoort AJMW, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJK, Brölmann HAM, Mol BWJ, Huirne JAF (2015) Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod (Oxf, Engl) 30(12):2695–2702.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sholapurkar SL (2018) Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (niche): detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J Clin Med Res 10(3):166–173.  https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3271w CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li X, Sun H, Lin N, Hou X, Wang J, Zhou B et al (2011) Regeneration of uterine horns in rats by collagen scaffolds loaded with collagen-binding human basic fibroblast growth factor. Biomaterials 32:8172–8181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sayin O, Micili SC, Goker A, Kamaci G, Ergur BU, Yilmaz O, Akdogan GG (2017) The role of resveratrol on full thickness uterine wound healing in rats. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 56:657–663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2017.08.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yazicioglu F, Gökdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygün M, Savan K (2006) Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 124(1):32–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turan GA, Gur EB, Tatar S, Gokduman A, Guclu S (2014) Uterine closure with unlocked suture in cesarean section: safety and quality. Pak J Med Sci 30(3):530–534.  https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.303.4545 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Dudenhausen JW, Bujak V, Kalache KD, Henrich W (2017) Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after single- or double-layer hysterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol Scand 96:1484–1489.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parente E, Colannino G, Picconi O, Monastra G (2017) Safety of oral alpha-lipoic acid treatment in pregnant women: a retrospective observational study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 21(18):4219–4227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vitrano G, Mocera G, Guardino M, Giallombardo V, Venezia R (2018) Oral plus vaginal alpha-lipoic acid in women at risk for preterm delivery. IJMDAT 1(1):104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of MedicineAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Mataria Teaching HospitalCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations