Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pregnancy following cesarean scar defect (niche) repair: a cohort study

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study is to learn the obstetrical outcome of women after laparoscopic niche repair.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study including all women after laparoscopic niche repair done by a single high-skilled surgeon, from July 2014 to March 2019. Data were collected from women's medical records and a telephone interview was performed to assess further symptoms and attempts to conceive, including pregnancy outcomes.

Results

During the study period, 48 women underwent laparoscopic niche repair, of them complete follow-up was achieved for 37 (78.7%) women. The median residual myometrial thickness measured by ultrasound before the repair was 2.0 mm (IQR 1.4–2.5). Attempts to conceive were reported by 81% (n = 30) of the women, while 18 (60%) achieved pregnancy in median time of 6 month (IQR 5–12) post-niche repair. 14 (78%) of the women conceived spontaneously. No placental abnormalities were reported in any of the women. All gave birth by cesarean delivery at a median of 38.4 gestation week (IQR 37.0–39.5). No dehiscence or rupture was reported.

Conclusions

Pregnancy following niche repair can be achieved with low pregnancy complication rate and good pregnancy outcomes. Further studies need to be done to strengthen our findings.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be available upon request.

Code availability

N/A.

References

  1. van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate 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 121(2):236–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C et al (2012) Standardized approach for imaging and measuring cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39(3):252–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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  Google Scholar 

  4. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA (2015) Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 30(12):2695–2702

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown K, Tkacz Z (2018) Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of caesarean scar (niche) defects in symptomatic patients. J Obstet Gynaecol 38(5):730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vervoort AJ, Van der Voet LF, Witmer M, Thurkow AL, Radder CM, van Kesteren PJ et al (2015) The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 15:103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S, BijdeVaate AJ, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA (2014) Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 121(2):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Li C, Tang S, Gao X, Lin W, Han D, Zhai J et al (2016) Efficacy of combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine diverticulum: a retrospective analysis. Biomed Res Int 2016:1765624

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Api M, Boza A, Gorgen H, Api O (2015) Should cesarean scar defect be treated laparoscopically? A case report and review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(7):1145–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mashiach R, Burke YZ (2020) Optimal isthmocele management: hysteroscopic, laparoscopic, or combination. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(3):565–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hemminki E (1996) Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy—a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 10(4):366–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C et al (2013) Does the presence of a caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit? Hum Reprod 28(6):1489–1496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A et al (2013) Impact of caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 28(7):1943–1952

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Lambalk CB, Huirne JA (2020) Post-caesarean section niche-related impaired fertility: hypothetical mechanisms. Hum Reprod 35(7):1484–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vitale SG, Ludwin A, Vilos GA, Török P, Tesarik J, Vitagliano A et al (2020) From hysteroscopy to laparoendoscopic surgery: what is the best surgical approach for symptomatic isthmocele? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301(1):33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gnoth C, Godehardt D, Godehardt E, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G (2003) Time to pregnancy: results of the German prospective study and impact on the management of infertility. Hum Reprod 18(9):1959–1966

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Menken J, Trussell J, Larsen U (1986) Age and infertility. Science 233(4771):1389–1394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Zimmer M (2014) Prediction of uterine dehiscence using ultrasonographic parameters of cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 14:365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C et al (2013) Changes in cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(5):556–562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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):75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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):72–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bulletins—Obstetrics ACoOaGCoP (2019) ACOG practice bulletin no. 205 vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 133(2):110–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Belfort MA (2010) Publications Committee ScfM-FM Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(5):430–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP (1985) Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 66(1):89–92

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assuta Medical Center, 69978l, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Motti Goldenberg, Roy Mashiach, Shlomo Cohen & Aya Mohr Sasson

  2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Motti Goldenberg, Roy Mashiach & Aya Mohr Sasson

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, 52621, Tel-Hashomer, Israel

    Idan Timor, Roy Mashiach, Shlomo Cohen & Aya Mohr Sasson

Authors
  1. Motti Goldenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Idan Timor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roy Mashiach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shlomo Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aya Mohr Sasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MG: Project administration; Supervision; Writing—Review & Editing; IT: Investigation, Data collection; RM: Methodology; Writing—Review & Editing; SC: Investigation; Review & Editing; AMS: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Roles/Writing—original draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aya Mohr Sasson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the ‘‘Assuta Medical Center’’ ethical committee Review Board (ID 33-19-ASMC) on the 4 of Aug 2019.

Consent to participate

N/A.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldenberg, M., Timor, I., Mashiach, R. et al. Pregnancy following cesarean scar defect (niche) repair: a cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 306, 1581–1586 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06688-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06688-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation