Late morbidity in cesarean section scar syndrome

Česká verzia

Authors: V. Klimánková ^1,2; R. Pilka ¹
Authors place of work: Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika LF UK a FN, Olomouc, přednosta prof. MUDr. R. Pilka ¹; Porodnicko-gynekologické oddělení Vítkovické nemocnice, Ostrava-Vítkovice, primář MUDr. J. Měch ²
Published in the journal: Ceska Gynekol 2018; 83(4): 300-306
Category:

Summary

Objective: To summarize recent knowledge on ethiology, diagnostic management and treatment possibilities of cesarean section scar syndrome (isthmocoele).

Design: Review article.

Setting: Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Faculty Hospital and Palacky University, Olomouc; Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Vítkovická nemocnice, Ostrava-Vítkovice.

Methods: A literature review of published data on cesarean section scar syndrome (isthmocoele).

Results: Cesarean section scar syndrome may be associated with subsequent complications including postmenstrual spotting or bleeding, dysmenorrhoea, abdominal pain, dyspareunia, infertility, scar pregnancy, a morbidly adherent placenta, scar dehiscence or rupture in later pregnancy. Ethiopathogenesis of isthmocoele remains poorly understood. Magnetic resonance, sonohysterography and transvaginal ultrasound are the gold standard imaging techniques for diagnosis. Surgical treatment is still controversial but should be offered to symptomatic women.

Conclusions: Given the association between an isthmocoele and gynaecological symptoms, obstetric complications and infertility, it is important to focus on preventive strategies of its development.

Keywords: cesarean section, late morbidity, isthmocoele, diagnosis, therapy

Zdroje

1.   Almeida, MA., Araujo Júnior, E., Camano, L., et al. Impact of cesarean section in a private health service in Brazil: indications and neonatal morbidity and mortality rates. Čes Gynek, 2018, 83, s. 4–10
2.   Bamberg, C., Hinkson, L., Dudenhausen, JW., et al. Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after single- or double-layer uterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2017, 96, p. 1484–1489.
3.   Bij de Vaate, AJM., van der Voet, LF., Naji, O., 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, p. 372–382.
4.   Bij de Vaate, AJM., Brölmann, HAM., et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 37, p. 93–99.
5.   Bolten, K., Fischer, T., Bender, YYN., et al. Pilot study of MRI/ultrasound fusion imaging in postpartum assessment of cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 50, p. 520–526.
6.   Čech, E., Hájek, Z., Maršál, K., et al. Porodnictví. 2. přepracované a doplněné vyd., Praha: Grada, 2006, s. 358–359.
7.   Di Spiezio Sardo, A., Zizolfi, B., et al. Hysteroscopic isthmoplasty: step by step technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2017, 25, p. 1719–1723.
8.   Dosedla, E., Calda, P. Outcomes of laparoscopic treatment in women with cesarean scar syndrome. MedSci Monit, 2017, 23, p. 4061–4066.
9.   Fonda, J. Ultrasound diagnosis of caesarean scar defects. AJUM, 2011, 14(3), p. 22–30.
10.   Futyma, K., Gałczyński, K., Romanek, K., et al. When and how should we treat cesarean scar defect – isthmocoele? Ginekol Pol, 2016, 87(9), p. 664–668.
11.   Glavind, J., Madsen, LD., Uldbjerg, N., Dueholm, M. Cesarean section scar measurements in non-pregnant women using three-dimensional ultrasound: a repeatability study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2016, 201, p. 65–69.
12.   Glavind, J., Madsen, LD., Uldbjerg, N., Dueholm, M. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2013, 42, p. 207–212.
13.   Gubbini, G., Centini, G., Nascetti, D., et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2011, 18, p. 234–237.
14.   Kovář, P., et al. Atlas panoramatické hysteroskopie. 1. vydání, Praha: Maxdorf Jessenius, 2017, s. 91–96.
15.   Liu, S., Lv, W., Li, W. Laparoscopic repair with hysteroscopy of cesarean scar diverticulum. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2016, 42, p. 1719–1723.
16.   Monteagudo, A., Carreno, C., Timor-Tritsch, IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the „niche“ in the scar. J Ultrasound Med, 2001, 20, p. 1105–1115.
17.   Morris, H. Surgical pathology of the lower uterine segment caesarean sectionscar: Is the scar a source of clinical symptoms? Int J Gynecol Pathol, 1995, 14, p. 16–20.
18.   Muzii, L., Domenici, L., Lecce, F., et al. Clinical outcomes after resectoscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective case-control study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2017, 21, p. 3341–3346.
19.   Naji, O., Abdallah, Y., Bij De Vaate, AJ., et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 39, p. 252–259.
20.   Poidevin, L. The value of hysterography in the prediction of cesarean section wound defect. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1961, 81, p. 67–71.
21.   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, p. 141–145.
22.   www.uzis.cz/system/files/rodnov2014_2015.pdf, Rodička a novorozenec 2014–2015, Mother and newborn 2014–2015. UZIS, 2017.
23.   Schepker, N., Garcia-Rocha, GJ., von Versen-Höynck, F., et al. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesaean section in non-pregnant woman. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2015, 291, p. 1417–1423.
24.   Setubal, A., Alves, J., Osório, F., et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouchlike defect at the site of a cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2018, 25, p. 38–46.
25.   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, p. 477–479.
26.   Talamonte, VH., Lippi, UG., Lopes, RGC., Stabile, SAB. Hysteroscopic findings in patients with post-menstrual spotting with prior cesarean section. Einstein (Sao Paulo), 2012, 10, p. 53–56.
27.   van der Voet, LF., Bij de Vaate, AM., Veersema, S., et al. 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, 2014, 121, p. 236–244.
28.   van der Voet, LF., Vervoort, AJ., Veersema, S., et al. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG, 2014, 121, p. 145–156.
29.   Vervoort, AJMW., van der Voet, LF., Witmer, M., et al. The HysNiche trial: hysteroscopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Women‘s Health, 2015, 15, p. 103.
30.   Vervoort, AJMW., Uittenbogaard, LB., Hehenkamp, WJK., et al. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod, 2015, 30, p. 2695–2702.
31.   Wang, CB., Chiu, WW., Lee, CY., et al. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34(1), p. 85–89.
32.   Yao, M., Wang, W., Zhou, J., et al. Cesarean section scar diverticulum evaluation by saline contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: The relationship between variable parameters and longer menstrual bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2017, 43, p. 696–704.
33.   Zahálková, L., Kacerovský, M. Ektopická gravidita v jizvě po císařském řezu. Čes Gynek, 2016, 81(6), s. 414–419.