Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Women`s Health Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4048
ISSN (Online): 1875-6581

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Cesarean Scar Defect (Niche) Risk Factors: A Prospective Study on Indonesian Women

Author(s): Irwin Lamtota Lumbanraja*, Dudy Aldiansyah, Binarwan Halim, Muara Panusunan Lubis, Yostoto Berkat Kaban and Riza Rivany

Volume 20, Issue 5, 2024

Published on: 13 September, 2023

Article ID: e210823220044 Pages: 8

DOI: 10.2174/1573404820666230821101739

Price: $65

Abstract

Introduction: Niche or cesarean scar defect is a complication of a cesarean section that has long-term implications for both obstetrics and gynecology. The rate of niche is believed to be increasing with the high number of cesarean sections. This study assesses the risk factors for niche development after cesarean section.

Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on women who underwent cesarean section at the Haji Adam Malik General Hospital Medan between August 2020 and August 2022. Niche was assessed six weeks after cesarean section using transvaginal ultrasonography. The primary outcome was the presence of a niche. The antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum risk factors were analyzed for niche development. A logistic regression model was used to assess independent risk factors from the bivariate analysis.

Results: There were 280 patients enrolled in this study. The prevalence of niche was 44.3% by using transvaginal ultrasound. There was no significant relationship between maternal age, gestational age, parity, nutritional status based on upper arm circumference, hypertension in pregnancy, anemia status, surgical indications, duration of surgery, volume blood loss, and puerperal infection to niche development (P > 0.05). The independent risk factors for niche development were Cervical dilatation > 4 cm (P = 0.035; RR = 1.75), locking suture technique (P = 0.015; RR = 13.81), non-closure vesicouterine folds (P = 0.04; RR = 0.14) and a retroflexed uterus (P = 0.001; RR = 0.039).

Conclusion: Cervical dilatation > 4 cm, locking suture technique, non-closure vesicouterine folds, and a retroflexed uterus are risk factors for niche development after CS.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Tang, X.; Wang, J.; Du, Y. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2019, 242, 1-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.09.001] [PMID: 31520876]
[2]
World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod. Health Matters, 2015, 23(45), 149-150.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007] [PMID: 26278843]
[3]
Jansen, C.H.J.R.; Kastelein, A.W.; Kleinrouweler, C.E. Development of placental abnormalities in location and anatomy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2020, 99(8), 983-993.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13834] [PMID: 32108320]
[4]
Vervoort, A.J.M.W.; Uittenbogaard, L.B.; Hehenkamp, W.J.K.; Brölmann, H.A.M.; Mol, B.W.J.; Huirne, J.A.F. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum. Reprod., 2015, 30(12), dev240.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev240] [PMID: 26409016]
[5]
Vervoort, A.J.M.W.; van der Voet, L.F.; Hehenkamp, W.J.K. Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG, 2018, 125(3), 326-334.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14733] [PMID: 28504857]
[6]
Torre, A.; Verspyck, E.; Hamamah, S. Cesarean scare niche: Definition, diagnosis, risk factors, prevention, symptoms, adverse effects, and treatments Gynécol. Obstét. Fertil. Sénol., 2021, 49(11), 858-868.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2021.06.003] [PMID: 34144220]
[7]
Kulshrestha, V.; Agarwal, N.; Kachhawa, G. Post-caesarean niche (isthmocele) in uterine scar: An update. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India, 2020, 70(6), 440-446.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13224-020-01370-0] [PMID: 33417629]
[8]
Tulandi, T.; Cohen, A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol., 2016, 23(6), 893-902.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.020] [PMID: 27393285]
[9]
Antila-Långsjö, R.M.; Mäenpää, J.U.; Huhtala, H.S.; Tomás, E.I.; Staff, S.M. Cesarean scar defect: A prospective study on risk factors. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2018, 219(5), 458.e1-458.e8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.004] [PMID: 30240650]
[10]
Menada Valenzano, M.; Lijoi, D.; Mistrangelo, E.; Costantini, S.; Ragni, N. Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after caesarean section: Correlation with gynaecological symptoms. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest., 2006, 61(4), 216-222.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000091497] [PMID: 16479140]
[11]
Sholapurkar, S.L. Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (niche): Detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J. Clin. Med. Res., 2018, 10(3), 166-173.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3271w] [PMID: 29416572]
[12]
Vikhareva Osser, O.; Jokubkiene, L.; Valentin, L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2009, 34(1), 90-97.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6395] [PMID: 19499514]
[13]
Evidence Update 35 - Caesarean section. A summary of selected new evidence relevant to NICE clinical guideline 132 ‘Caesarean section. 2011. Avilable from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551069/
[14]
CAESAR study collaborative group Caesarean section surgical techniques: A randomised factorial trial (CAESAR)., BJOG, 2010, 117(11), 1366-1376.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02686.x] [PMID: 20840692]
[15]
CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group.The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: A randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2007, 7(1), 24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-7-24] [PMID: 18336721]
[16]
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(5), 453-460.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.014] [PMID: 24912096]
[17]
Di Spiezio Sardo, A.; Saccone, G.; McCurdy, R.; Bujold, E.; Bifulco, G.; Berghella, V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2017, 50(5), 578-583.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.17401] [PMID: 28070914]
[18]
Park, I.Y.; Kim, M.R.; Lee, H.N.; Gen, Y.; Kim, M.J. Risk factors for Korean women to develop an isthmocele after a cesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2018, 18(1), 162.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1821-2] [PMID: 29764452]
[19]
Shi, Z.; Ma, L.; Yang, Y. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG, 2011, 118(4), 410-422.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02808.x] [PMID: 21176087]
[20]
Bij de Vaate, A.J.M.; Brölmann, H.A.M.; van der Voet, L.F.; van der Slikke, J.W.; Veersema, S.; Huirne, J.A.F. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: Relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2011, 37(1), 93-99.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.8864] [PMID: 21031351]
[21]
Pan, H.; Gu, A.; Yang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Liang, F. Postpartum changes in uterine position and occurrence of cesarean scar defects: A retrospective observational study. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol., 2022, 49(7), 159.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4907159]
[22]
Kaelin Agten, A.; Honart, A.; Monteagudo, A.; McClelland, S.; Basher, B.; Timor-Tritsch, I.E. Cesarean delivery changes the natural position of the uterus on transvaginal ultrasonography. J. Ultrasound Med., 2018, 37(5), 1179-1183.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jum.14461] [PMID: 29076539]
[23]
Rosa, F.; Perugin, G.; Schettini, D. Imaging findings of cesarean delivery complications: Cesarean scar disease and much more. Insights Imaging, 2019, 10(1), 98.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0780-0] [PMID: 31549248]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy