18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is an increasing incidence of cesarean scar (CS) defect/niche and its sequelae, probably not entirely explained by better diagnosis or rising cesarean rate. Discussion of possible etiological factors has received scant attention but would be important to formulate preventive strategies. Meaningful informative studies on long-term sequelae of cesarean section are very difficult and none are available for causation of CS defect. Hence, it is crucial to identify key areas in etiology of CS defect for focused research. This practical review proposes an “ischemia and mal-apposition hypothesis for CS niche”, stating that the surgical technique of uterine incision closure is the most important determinant of CS defect formation. Other factors such as cervical location incision, adhesion formation and patient specific factors seem far less important in etiology. Rather than the headline theme of “single versus double-layer closure of uterus”, the finer details of surgical technique which achieve good apposition without inducing tissue ischemia seem more important. Different techniques are discussed and it is proposed that continuous, non-locking absorbable sutures in two layers, without including much of decidua and without undue tight (constricting/devasculaizing) pulling of sutures are likely to result in good healing of uterine scar. Single-layer technique may be best reserved for thin myometrial edges especially during repeat cesareans. Adhesions between uterine isthmus and bladder/abdominal wall seem common associations but not causative for CS niche. It would be desirable to prove these surgical principles by good quality prospective randomized “quantitative” studies but the wait may be very long and this should not hinder the adoption of good surgical principles. Science is much cognitive and not just empirical. To consider a related example, the current recommendation of non-suturing of peritoneal layers during cesarean is mistakenly based on short-term irrelevant surrogate outcomes like analgesic requirements and time-saving, many of which have been already disproven. Evidence is presented recommending simple quick techniques of peritoneal closure to prevent adhesions. More analytical debate in surgical techniques is needed to inspire engaged, critical and insightful practitioners rather than unquestioning dependence on weak evidence/guidance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position.

          To determine the prevalence of clinical symptoms associated with Cesarean scar defects, and to determine the association between the size of these defects, clinical complaints, uterine position, and a history of multiple Cesarean sections. In this cross-sectional study, Cesarean scar defects in women with a history of transverse lower-segment Cesarean section were measured by transvaginal ultrasound while being assessed for other gynecological conditions. The relationships between the size of the Cesarean scar defect and the clinical symptoms, uterine position and number of previous Cesarean sections were evaluated. Patients with other uterine pathologies, including endometrial hyperplasia, polyps, malignancy and submucosal myomas, were excluded from the study. During a 3-year period, 4250 women were assessed by transvaginal sonography, of whom 293 (6.9%) were diagnosed with Cesarean scar defects. Eighty-six patients were excluded due to other uterine pathologies. Altogether, 207 patients with Cesarean scar defects were included in this study. Women who had undergone multiple Cesarean sections tended to have larger scar defects (in width and depth) than did those who had undergone a single Cesarean section. Women with retroflexed uteri also tended to have wider defects than those with anteflexed uteri. Defect width was significantly greater in women with postmenstrual spotting, dysmenorrhea and chronic pelvic pain. Multiple Cesarean sections and retroflexed uteri are risk factors for larger Cesarean scar defects. The size of the Cesarean scar defect is associated with clinical symptoms such as postmenstrual spotting, dysmenorrhea and chronic pelvic pain. (c) 2009 ISUOG.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting.

            To evaluate the relationship between a niche and abnormal uterine bleeding, and to develop a sonographic classification of niches and evaluate its relationship to abnormal uterine bleeding.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              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.

              To study the prevalence of niches in the caesarean scar in a random population, and the relationship with postmenstrual spotting and urinary incontinence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med Res
                J Clin Med Res
                Elmer Press
                Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
                Elmer Press
                1918-3003
                1918-3011
                March 2018
                26 January 2018
                : 10
                : 3
                : 166-173
                Affiliations
                Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, BA1 3NG, UK. Email: s.sholapurkar@ 123456nhs.net
                Article
                10.14740/jocmr3271w
                5798260
                29416572
                3a48d950-6898-45af-bc1a-507bcc6f63d8
                Copyright 2018, Sholapurkar

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 13 November 2017
                : 8 January 2018
                Categories
                Review

                Medicine
                cesarean scar defect,cesarean scar niche,uterine incision closure,cesarean single layer closure,cesarean double layer closure,etiology of cesarean scar defect,peritoneal closure during cesarean,adhesion formation after cesarean

                Comments

                Comment on this article