Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 297, Issue 5, pp 1137–1143 | Cite as

Evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer hysterotomy closure: a prospective cross-sectional study

  • Nur Betül Tekiner
  • Berna Aslan Çetin
  • Lale Susan Türkgeldi
  • Gökçe Yılmaz
  • İbrahim Polat
  • Ali Gedikbaşı
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Background

We aimed to determine if there is a difference in the size of the cesarean scar defect using saline infusion sonography (SIS) performed on the postoperative third month in patients who underwent single- or double-layered unlocked closure of their uterine incision during their first cesarean delivery.

Methods

This study was conducted as a prospective cross-sectional study between February 2015 and January 2016 in patients admitted to the labour ward of the Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital who subsequently underwent their first delivery by cesarean section. Patients with a previous history of cesarean delivery, preterm pregnancies less than 34 gestational weeks, patients lost to follow-up or those who had an IUD inserted after delivery were excluded from the study. Out of the 327 patients who underwent primary cesarean delivery, 280 were included into the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the single- (n:126) or double-layered (n:156) closure of their uterine incision. The maternal age, height, weight, obstetric and gynecologic histories, medical histories, indications for their cesarean delivery, technique of uterine closure, birth weight of the baby, duration of the cesarean delivery, need for extra suturing and transfusion were recorded. A Saline infusion sonography (SIS) was performed 3 months postoperatively to determine the presence, depth and length of the cesarean scar. The residual myometrial thickness overlying the scar defect and the fundal myometrial thickness were recorded.

Results

No difference was detected between the groups with respect to patient characteristics, whether the operation was elective or emergent, the type of anesthesia used, need for extra suturing, incidence of bladder injuries or uterine atony, need for blood transfusions, duration of labour or cervical dilatation and effacement between the two groups. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups with respect to the length and depth of the scar defect.

Conclusion

Single- or double-layered closure of the uterus does not seem to affect the size of the uterine scar defect detected on SIS 3 months following the first cesarean delivery.

Keywords

Cesarean delivery Uterine closure techniques Saline infusion sonography Uterine niche Scar defect 

Notes

Authors’contributions

NBT: Data collection, BAÇ: Manuscript writing, LST: Manuscript writing, GY: Data collection, IP: Project development, AG: Project development

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Belinda Centeio L, Scapinelli A, Deped D, Lippi U, Lopes R (2010) Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean section. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:361–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vikhareva OO, Valentin L (2011) Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean section of hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 117(3):525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vikhareva OO, Valentin L (2010) Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incisions after cesarean section. BJOG 117(9):1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J et al (2008) Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(1):72–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E et al (2010) The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):43–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar SA (2005) Single versus double layer closure of low transverse uterine incision at cesarean section. J Obstet Gynecol India 55(3):231–236Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N et al (2011) Single versus double-layer hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 115(1):5–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jelsema RD, Wittingen JA, Vander Kolk KJ (1993) Continuous, nonlocking, single-layer repair of the low transverse uterine incision. J Reprod Med 38:393–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turan GA, Gür EB, Tatar S, Gökduman A, Güçlü S (2014) Uterine closure with unlocked suture in cesarean section: safety and quality. Pak J Med Sci 30(3):530–534PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 20:1105–1115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SS (1999) Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 18(1):13–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L (2010) Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35(1):75–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dicle O, Küçükler C, Pirnar T, Erata Y, Posaci C (1997) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 7(1):31–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menada Valenzano M, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E (2006) Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after cesarean section: correlation with gynaecological symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest 61:216–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    CAESAR Study Collaborative Group (2010) Cesarean section surgical techniques: a randomized factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 117:1366–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sevket O, Ates S, Molla T, Ozkal F, Uysal O, Dansuk R (2014) Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Internal J Gynecol Obstet 125(3):219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glavind J, Madsen LD, Uldbjerg N, Dueholm M (2013) Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single and double layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42(2):207–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vachon-Marceau C, Demers S, Bujold E, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Pasquier JC et al (2017) Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 7(1):65.e1–65.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, Suzuki M, Tamakoshi K et al (2006) Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85(4):429–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P et al (2004) Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23(3):289–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Obstetrics and Gynecology Departmentİstanbul Beykoz State HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecologyİstanbul Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital, AltınşehirİstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Obstetrics and Gynecology DepartmentBolu İzzet Baysal State HospitalBoluTurkey

Personalised recommendations