Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women

  • Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Caesarean delivery (c-section) scar dehiscences may cause bleeding abnormalities, e.g. postmenstrual spotting, dysmenorrhea and abdominal pain, secondary sterility and at worst peripartum uterine rupture. The purpose of this study was firstly to identify the correlation of women’s complaints after c-section with scar-related clinical symptoms. Secondly, the effects of corrective surgery on preoperatively existing complaints were analysed and assessed in the patient population of our clinic.

Methods

We present data of a retrospective study of 13 premenopausal, non-pregnant women with symptomatic c-section scars. In 9 out of 13 patients, a microsurgical uterus reconstruction was performed by mini-laparotomy. The postoperative changes of scar-associated symptoms were assessed by a questionnaire as earliest as 4 months after surgery (N = 5).

Results

The c-section scar was visualised by transvaginal sonography in 12 out of 13 women by a typical U- or V-shaped hypoechoic or anechoic fluid accumulation in the region of former uterotomy and in all 13 patients by hysteroscopy. Bleeding disorders were often accompanied by dysmenorrhea/abdominal pain (38.5 %, N = 5) and secondary sterility (46.2 %, N = 6). Blood residues in the scar pouch and bleeding disorders/postmenstrual spotting were found in 30.8 % of patients (N = 4) and combined with secondary sterility in 38.5 % of patients (N = 5). Reconstructive surgeries resulted in discontinuation of bleeding disorders in all women and a pregnancy in three out of five patients (60 %) with secondary sterility.

Conclusion

Clinical symptoms, e.g. “bleeding disorders” like postmenstrual spotting, “pain/dysmenorrhea” and “secondary sterility” could be specific indicators for the diagnosis of uterine dehiscence after c-section. Scar dehiscences can be diagnosed by obtaining the patients medical history and asking for typical symptoms followed by vaginal sonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy. If a c-section scar defect is confirmed, microsurgical uterus reconstruction can stop postmenstrual spotting, reduce abdominal pain/dysmenorrhea and improve fertility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice (2006) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 342: induction of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 108(2):465–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G, Suzuki S, Araki T (2000) Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labor: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nippon Med Sch 67(5):352–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Appleton B, Targett C, Rasmussen M, Readman E, Sale F, Permezel M (2000) Vaginal birth after Caesarean section: an Australian multicentre study. VBAC Study Group. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 40(1):87–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. Leitlinie Schwangerschaftsbetreuung und Geburtseinleitung bei Zustand nach Sectio. AWMF 015/021 (S1). August 2010

  5. Fabres C, Arriagada P, Fernández C, MacKenna A, Zegers F, Fernández E (2005) Surgical treatment and follow-up of women with intermenstrual bleeding due to cesarean section scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(1):25–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dannecker C, Hübener C, Toth B, Lienemann A, Hepp H, Hasbargen U (2003) Asymptomatic uterine rupture after two spontaneous vaginal deliveries following prior cesarean section. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 43(4):245–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R, Irion O, Boulvain M (2006) Inter- and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27(4):420–424

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1999) ACOG practice bulletin. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Number 5, July 1999 (replaces practice bulletin number 2, October 1998). Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 66(2):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haag P, Hanhart N, Müller M (2010) Gynäkologie. Gynäkologie und Urologie. 5th edn. Breisach a.Rh. pp 45–234

  10. Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi JA, Patel S, Malinow AM, Weiner CP (2005) Ruptur of the uterine scar during term labour: contractility or biochemistry? BJOG 186(112):38–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK (2000) Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(5):1187–1197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rath W, Surbek D (2006) Induction of labour after previous caesarean section. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 66(12):1143–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ecker JL, Frigoletto FD (2007) Caesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. N Engl J Med 356:885–888

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Juzi C, Rageth JC (2000) Delivery after previous cesarean section: an evaluation of peripartal risks. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 60(7):345–353

    Google Scholar 

  15. Klemm P, Köhler C, Mangler M, Schneider A (2007) Sonographic detection of late scar dehiscence after caesarean section and its vaginal or laparoscopic-vaginal repair. Gynäkol Prax 31(2):237–244

    Google Scholar 

  16. Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE (2001) Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 20(10):1105–1115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ceci O, Cantatore C, Scioscia M, Nardelli C, Ravi M, Vimercati A et al (2012) Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38(11):1302–1307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ (2009) Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34(1):85–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA (1999) Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 18(1):13–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Borges LM, Scapinelli A, de Baptista Depes D, Lippi UG, Coelho Lopes RG (2010) Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean section. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):361–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang CJ, Huang HJ, Chao A, Lin YP, Pan YJ, Horng SG (2011) Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar defect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 154:218–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chang Y, Tsai EM, Long CY, Lee CL, Kay N (2009) Resectoscopic treatment combined with sonohysterographic evaluation of women with postmenstrual bleeding as a result of previous cesarean delivery scar defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:370el–370e4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, Marra E, Moncini I, Bruni L et al (2011) Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:234–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (2005) SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 89:319–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer WR, Castelbaum AJ, Somkuti S, Sagoskin AW, Doyle M, Harris JE et al (1997) Hydrosalpinges adversely affect markers of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 12(7):1393–1398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mukherjee T, Copperman AB, McCaffrey C, Cook CA, Bustillo M, Bacau MF (1996) Hydrosalpinx fluid has embryo toxic effects on marine embryogenesis: a case for prophylactic salpingectomy. Fertil Steril 66(5):851–853

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson N, van Voorst S, Sowter MC, Strandell A, Mol BW (2010) Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20(1):CD002125. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002125.pub3

    Google Scholar 

  28. Voss E, Boldes R, Stark M, Fleming C, Hull M (1996) Impaired implantation after in vitro fertilisation treatment associated with hydrosalpinx. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103(8):851

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Eytan O, Azem F, Gull I, Wolman I, Elad D, Jaffa AJ (2001) The mechanism of hydrosalpinx in embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 16(12):2662–2667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Horenbeeck A, Temmerman M, Dhont M (2003) Cesarean scar dehiscence and irregular uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 102(5 Pt. 2):1137–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E (2008) Resectoscopic correction of the “isthmocele” in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(2):172–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, Moore L, Jastrow N, Demers S et al (2012) Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol 29(6):465–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH (2003) Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 101:61–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T et al (2006) Methods from myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:429–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Menada Valenzano M, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E, Costantini S, Ragni N (2006) Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after cesarea section: correlation with gynaecological symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest 61:216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fabres C, Aviles G, De la Jara C, Escalona J, Muñoz JF, Mackenna A et al (2003) The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med 22(7):695–700

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I (1996) Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 347(8997):281–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ceci O, Scioscia M, Vicino M, Pinto L, Pontrelli G, Bettocchi S (2007) Recurrent intermenstrual bleeding secondary to cesarean sectio scari? Fertil Steril 88(3):757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S (2004) Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet 87(3):215–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Erickson SS, Van Voorhis BJ (1999) Intermenstrual bleeding secondary to cesarean scar diverticuli: Report of three cases. Obstet Gynecol 93(5 Pt. 2):802–805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ (2002) Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors? Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(2):311–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Helen Nelson Carcio, Helen A Carcio (eds) (1998) Management of the Infertile Woman. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, ISBN 0781710448

  43. Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS (2007) Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 110(4):808–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Marotta ML, Donnez J, Squifflet J, Jadoul P, Darii N, Donnez O (2013) Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine scar defects diagnosed in nonpregnant women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20(2):386–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Feng YL, Li MX, Liang XQ, Li XM (2012) Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(4):498–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, Xie HZ, Yao SZ (2012) Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticuli. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(4):454–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mrs Rieck of the Institute for Biometrics of MHH for the biometric and statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest, have had full control of all primary data and agree to allow the Journal to review their data if requested.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Neele Schepker, Guillermo-José Garcia-Rocha, Frauke von Versen-Höynck, Peter Hillemanns & Cordula Schippert

Authors
  1. Neele Schepker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guillermo-José Garcia-Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frauke von Versen-Höynck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Hillemanns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cordula Schippert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cordula Schippert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schepker, N., Garcia-Rocha, GJ., von Versen-Höynck, F. et al. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291, 1417–1423 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation