Advertisement

Hysteroscopy pp 401-407 | Cite as

Why Some Women Develop Cesarean Scar Defect (CSD)?

  • Emanuele-Cristina-Valeria Perrone-Di Cesare-Masciullo
  • Emanuele Perrone
  • Cristina Di Cesare
  • Valeria Masciullo
Chapter

Abstract

Cesarean scar defect (CSD), also known as isthmocele or niche, is the result of incomplete healing of isthmic myometrium after a low transverse uterine incision performed for cesarean section. The prevalence of symptomatic or clinically relevant CSD reported in literature ranges from 19% to 84% and in few cases may be also associated with secondary infertility and obstetric complications such as scar tissue dehiscence, scar pregnancy, and abnormally adherent placenta. Premenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding (PAUB) is the most typical and bothersome symptom. CSD can be diagnosed using transvaginal sonography (TVS), sonohysterography (SIS), or hysteroscopy. Some authors identified some risk factors on CSD development that can be divided into surgery-related factors and patient-related factors. Over the years, several surgical treatments have been proposed: laparoscopic excision, a combined laparoscopic-vaginal approach, and a purely vaginal approach. More recently, robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair of isthmocele and hysteroscopic treatment have been introduced. Of the two approaches, hysteroscopic resection is the most commonly reported and the less invasive; however, it cannot restore myometrial thickness; thus we suggest this approach in those women that have completed the reproductive pathway.

Keywords

Cesarean scar defect Cesarean section Isthmocele Infertility Hysteroscopy 

References

  1. 1.
    Morris H. Surgical pathology of the lower uterine segment caesarean section scar: is the scar a source of clinical symptoms? Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1995;14:16–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bij de Vaate AJ, Brolmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):93–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. 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. 2014a;121:236–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Florio P, Gubbini G, Marra E, Dores D, Nascetti D, Bruni L, et al. A retrospective case-control study comparing hysteroscopic resection versus hormonal modulation in treating menstrual disorders due to isthmocele. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2011;27:434–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fabres C, Arriagada P, Fernandez C, Mackenna A, Zegers F, Fernández E. Surgical treatment and follow-up of women with intermenstrual bleeding due to cesarean section scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:25–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015;12:2695–702.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang CB, Chiu WWC, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):85–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:75–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zimmer EZ, Bardin R, Tamir A, Bronshtein M. Sonographic imaging of cervical scars after cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:594–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, et al. Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;31(1):72–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El SM, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Mathews JE, Masood SN, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013, 382;(9888):234–48.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CAESAR Study Collaborative Group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010;117:1366–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, Chaillet N, Moore L, Bujold E. Impact of single vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:453–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of cesarean scar defect in single- versus double-layer uterine closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; doi: 10.1002/uog.17401.
  15. 15.
    Ceci O, Cantatore C, Scioscia M, Nardelli C, Ravi M, Vimercati A, Bettocchi S. Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterinescar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38:1302–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N, Gauthier RJ, Hudic I, Shipp TD, Weimar CH, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;(1):115, 5–0.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Awonuga AO, Fletcher NM, Saed GM, Diamond MP. Postoperative adhesion development following cesarean and open intra-abdominal gynecological operations: a review. Reprod Sci. 2011;18:1166–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. Standardized ultrasonographic approach for the assessment of risk factors of incomplete healing of the cesarean section scar in the uterus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:141–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, Suzuki M, Tamakoshi K, et al. 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. 2006;85(4):429–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osser OV, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1119–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, Marra E, Moncini I, Bruni L, et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:234–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Vaate AJMB, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):372–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Vaate AJMB, Brölmann HAM, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JAF. Ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;37(1):93–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):90–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D, Seracchioli R, Scambia G, Masciullo V. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:297–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J. Laparoscopic repair of wide and deep uterine scar dehiscence after cesarean section. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:974–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xie H, Wu Y, Yu F, He M, Cao M, Yao S. A comparison of vaginal surgery and operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele: a retrospective review. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2014;77:78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yalcinkaya TM, Akar ME, Kammire LD, Johnston-MacAnanny EB, Mertz HL. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair of symptomatic cesarean scar defect: a report of two cases. J Reprod Med. 2011;56:265–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tahara M, Shimizu T, Shimoura H. Preliminary report of treatment with oral contraceptive pills for intermenstrual vaginal bleeding secondary to a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:477–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S, BijdeVaate AJ, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG. 2014;121:145–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feng YL, Li MX, Liang XQ, Li XM. Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:498–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vervoort AJMW, Van der Voet LF, Witmer M, Thurkow AL, Radder CM, van Kesteren PJ, et al. The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emanuele-Cristina-Valeria Perrone-Di Cesare-Masciullo
    • 1
  • Emanuele Perrone
    • 1
  • Cristina Di Cesare
    • 1
  • Valeria Masciullo
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of GynecologyFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino GemelliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations