medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8013 (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

2024, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med UAS 2024; 14 (1)

Frequency of istmocele in patients with a history of cesarean section

Martínez-Beltrán VM, Morgan-Ruiz FV, Báez-Barraza J, Gutiérrez-Arzapalo PY, Peraza-Garay FJ, Morgan-Ortiz F

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 34-43
PDF size: 380.29 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective is to know the frequency of isthmocele in patients who attend the Civil Hospital of Culiacán with or without abnormal uterine bleeding and with a history of one or more cesarean sections. Materials and methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was carried out in patients with one or more previous cesarean sections. The following variables were analyzed: age, number of pregnancies, number of previous cesarean sections, presence of abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain. These patients underwent a transvaginal ultrasound in order to evaluate the presence of a defect in the scar from a previous cesarean section (isthmocele). The ultrasonography study was performed by two experienced imagers, with a full bladder using a General Electric Voluson E6 high-resolution endovaginal transducer. Statistical analysis was carried out with calculation of confidence intervals for the proportion of isthmocele. Results: 35 patients with a history of one or more previous cesarean sections were studied. Of which 17.1% (n=6) presented an isthmocele. With 33.3% in patients with a history of a previous cesarean section, 50% in patients with 2 previous cesarean sections and 166.6% in patients with 3 or more previous cesarean sections. The symptom most frequently reported by patients with isthmocele was infertility, found in 66.6% of patients with isthmocele, followed by abnormal uterine bleeding in 16%, and it was observed that 33% of patients with isthmocele did not present any symptoms. Conclusions: The frequency of isthmocele was 17.1% higher than that reported in the international literature, with infertility and abnormal uterine bleeding being the most frequently associated symptoms.


REFERENCES

  1. Naji O, Abdallah Y. Cesarean Birth: Surgical Te-chniques. Glob. Libr. Women's Med 2010; 1-24.

  2. Robert M. Silver. Implications of the first ce-sarean: Perinatal and future reproductive healthand subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. Se-min Perinatol 2012; 36:315-323.

  3. Betran P, Ye Ji, Moller A, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu A, Torloni M. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national esti-mates: 1990-2014. Plos One 2015;11:1-12.

  4. Antila-Långsjö RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM.. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219(5):458.e1-8.

  5. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, VeersemaH, Bourne T et al. Prevalence, po-tential risk factors for development and sym-ptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43(4):372-382.

  6. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do ni-ches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hy-potheses on the aetiology of niche development. Human Reprod 2015;30:2695–2702.

  7. Shashikant L. Sholapurkar. 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.

  8. Woźniak A, Pyra K, Tinto HR, Woźniak S. Ultra-sonographic criteria of cesarean scar defect eva-luation. J Ultrasound 2018;18:162–165.

  9. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bu-jold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer ute-rine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ul-trasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;50(5):578-583.

  10. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. Morphology of the cesarean sectionscar in the non-pregnant uterus after one elec-tive cesarean section. Ginekol Polska 2017; 88:174–179.

  11. Osser OV, Valentine L. Risk factors for incom-plete healing of the uterine incision after cae-sarean section. BJOG 2010;117:1119–1126.

  12. Kremer TG, Ghiorzi IB, Dibi RP. Isthmocele: an overview of diagnosis and treatment. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2019;65(5):714-721.

  13. Cerda M. Importancia ginecológica del istmocele ¿cómo y cuándo tratar? Ginecol Obstet Mex 2017;85(2):55-63.

  14. Alkon-Meadows T, Luna-Rojas M, Hernández-Nieto C, Sandler B. Itsmocele: una revisión sis-temática de la literatura. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2019;87(12):820-831.

  15. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, Marra E, Mon-cini I, Bruni L, et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treat-ment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in resto-ring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(2):234-237.

  16. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, Van Der Voet LF, Van Der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ul-trasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: rela-tion between a niche and postmenstrual spot-ting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37(1):93-99.

  17. Tang X, Wang J, Du Y, Xie M, Zhang H, Xu H, et al. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and com-parison of evaluation efficacy between transva-ginal sonography and magnetic resonance ima-ging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019;242:1–6.

  18. Wong WSF, Fung WT. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Cesarean Scar De-fect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2018;7(3):104-107.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com