To the content
1 . 2025

Informativeness of diagnostic measures for failure of the uterine scar after cesarean section

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the informativeness of diagnostic methods for incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section and to analyze the relationship between the number of cesarean sections and the thickness of the uterine scar according to data from various diagnostic methods.

Material and methods. A retrospective analysis of data from 68 patients who underwent planned surgical treatment for an incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section was conducted for the period from 2022 to 2024. The indication for surgical correction of the uterine scar after cesarean section in all cases was a scar with a thickness of less than 2.5 mm.

Results. According to the results of the study, magnetic resonance imaging has a high sensitivity to the indicators of the thickness of the uterine scar after cesarean section, in contrast to ultrasound data, and is a mandatory diagnostic criterion for determining indications for planned surgical correction of the uterine scar.

Keywords: cesarean section; uterine scar; scar failure; magnetic resonance imaging

Funding. The study had no sponsor support.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Stavropol State Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (protocol No. 1 of January 15, 2025).

For citation: Grigoryants А.A., Aksenenko D.V., Dubovoy A.A., Efimova Ya.E., Kolesnikova V.V. Informativeness of diagnostic measures for failure of the uterine scar after cesarean section. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya: novosti, mneniya, obuchenie [Obstetrics and Gynecology: News, Opinions, Training]. 2025; 13 (1): 44–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33029/2303-9698-2025-13-1-44-49 (in Russian)

References

  1. Healthcare in Russia. 2023: statistical compendium. In: Rosstat. Moscow, 2023: 179 p. (in Russian)
  2. Zheng X., Yan J., Liu Z., Wang X., et al. Safety and feasibility of trial of labor in pregnant women with cesarean scar diverticulum. J Int Med Res. 2020; 48 (9). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060520954993
  3. Sidorova T.A., Martynov S.A. Risk factors and mechanisms of formation of scar defects on the uterus after cesarean section. Ginekologiya [Gynecology]. 2022; 24 (1): 11–7. (in Russian)
  4. Szafarowska M., Biela M., Wichowska J., et al. Symptoms and quality of life changes after hysteroscopic treatment in patients with symptomatic isthmocele-preliminary results. J Clin Med. 2021; 10 (13): 2928. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132928
  5. Donnez O. Cesarean scar defects: management of an iatrogenic pathology whose prevalence has dramatically increased. Fertil Steril. 2020; 113 (4): 704–16.
  6. Warshafsky C., Chaikof M., Sanders A.P., Murji A., Sobel M., Hartman A., et al. Preventing Isthmocele after Cesarean Section (PICS): a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021; 28 (11): 73–74.
  7. Torre A., Verspyck E., Hamamah S., et al. Isthmocèle: définition, diagnostic, facteurs de risque, prévention, symptômes, complications, et traitements [Cesarean scare niche: definition, diagnosis, risk factors, prevention, symptoms, adverse effects, and treatments]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2021; 49 (11): 858–68.
  8. Woodd S.L., Montoya A., Barreix M., et al. Incidence of maternal peripartum infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019; 16 (12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002984
  9. Taylor M., Pillarisetty L.S. Endometritis [Update October 26, 2023]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing [Internet], 2023.
  10. Vikhareva O., Rickle G.S., Lavesson T., et al. Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53 (4): 438–42.
  11. Konje J.C., Ahmed B. Best practice and research clinical obstetrics and gynaecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2023; 92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102431
  12. Park I.Y., Kim M.R., Lee H.N., et al. Risk factors for Korean women to develop an isthmocele after a Cesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18 (1): 162.
  13. Rosa F., Perugin G., Schettini D., et al. Imaging findings of cesarean delivery complications: cesarean scar disease and much more. Insights Imaging. 2019; 10 (1): 98.
  14. Vervoort A.J., Uittenbogaard L.B., Hehenkamp W.J., et al. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30 (12): 2695–702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev240
  15. Nozhnitseva O.N., Semenov I.A., Bezhenar’ V.F. Scar on the uterus after cesarean section and the optimal algorithm for diagnosing its condition. Luchevaya diagnostika i terapiya [Radiation Diagnostics and Therapy]. 2019; 10 (2): 85–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90 (in Russian)

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)

CHIEF EDITORS
CHIEF EDITOR
Sukhikh Gennadii Tikhonovich
Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, V.I. Kulakov Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology National Medical Research Center of Ministry of Healthсаre of the Russian Federation, Moscow
CHIEF EDITOR
Kurtser Mark Arkadievich
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, MD, Professor, Head of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Subdepartment of the Pediatric Department, N.I. Pirogov Russian National Scientific Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
CHIEF EDITOR
Radzinsky Viktor Evseevich
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, MD, Professor, Head of the Subdepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology with a Course of Perinatology of the Medical Institute in the Russian People?s Friendship University named after P. Lumumbа
geotar-digit
Journals of «GEOTAR-Media»