medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2019, Number 12

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2019; 87 (12)

Istmocele: a systematic review of literature

Alkon-Meadows T, Luna-Rojas M, Hernández-Nieto C, Sandler B

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 820-831
PDF size: 519.66 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Review the literature on the prevalence, risk factors, symptoms, diagnoses and treatment of patients with isthmocele.
Method: An electronic search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar. The following terms, words and their combinations were used: "Cesarean section defect, uterine niche, isthmocele, uterine sacculation, uterine diverticulum, uterine pouch, isthmocele diagnosis, segmentocele y isthmocele treatment”. The primary outcome was the symptoms associated with a cesarean scar defect. The secondary outcomes were prevalence, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of istomocele.
Results: 549 articles were collected, of which 288 were eliminated due to duplication and 228 did not meet the inclusion criteria; In the end, only 33 articles were analyzed. A prevalence of 15 to 84% was found in women with a previous caesarean section. The prevalence of this alteration is correlated with the number of cesarean sections; the greater the number of caesarean sections, the greater the risk of developing an isthmocele. Its presence can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. The most common symptom is abnormal uterine bleeding, occurring in a 28.9% to 82% of the patients. Up to 88% of cases are diagnosed by a transvaginal ultrasound. A surgical hysteroscopy was associated with a 56.9% to a 100% improvement of symptoms.
Conclusions: Isthmocele is commonly identified incidentally through a transvaginal ultrasound and is usually asymptomatic. It can cause abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. Its prevalence depends on the diagnostic method used. A surgical hysteroscopy is the most effective treatment method.


REFERENCES

  1. 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;50:578-583. DOI: 10.1002/ uog.18911

  2. Morris H. Surgical pathology of the lower uterine segment caesarean section scar: is the scar a source of clinical symptoms? Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1995;14:16-20. PMID:7883420

  3. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brolmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 93–99. DOI:10.1002/uog.8864

  4. Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E. Resectoscopic correction of the “isthmocele” in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:172– 175. DOI: 10.1016/j. jmig.2007.10.004.

  5. 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;18:234–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.011.

  6. Borges LM, Scapinelli A, Depes D, Lippi U, Lopes R. Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean section. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:361–364. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.02.007.

  7. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med. 1999;18:13–16. DOI:10.7863/jum.1999.18.1.13

  8. Fabres C, Aviles G, De La Jara C, et al. The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22: 695–700. DOI:10.7863/ jum.2003.22.7.695

  9. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:90–97. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6395.

  10. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, et al. Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:72–77. DOI:10.1002/uog.5200

  11. Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101: 61–65. DOI:10.1016/s0029- 7844(02)02450-x

  12. 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;34:85–89. DOI:10.1002/uog.6405

  13. Wang CJ, Huang HJ, Chao A, et al. Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar defect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;154: 218–222. 21. DOI:10.1016/j. ejogrb.2010.10.016

  14. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:75–83. DOI:10.1002/uog.7496

  15. Fabres C, Arriagada P, Fernandez C, et al. Surgical treatment and follow-up of women with intermenstrual bleeding due to cesarean section scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12: 25–28. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2004.12.023

  16. Feng YL, Li MX, Liang XQ, Li XM. Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19: 498–502. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.010

  17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health-care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339: b2700. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

  18. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007;4: e297. DOI:10.1016/j. ijsu.2014.07.014

  19. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Zimmer M. Prediction of uterine dehiscence using ultrasonographic parameters of cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2014;14:365. DOI:10.1186/s12884-014-0365-3

  20. 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;20:1105–1115. DOI:10.7863/ jum.2001.20.10.1105

  21. Chang Y, Tsai EM, Long CY, Lee CL, Kay N. Resectoscopic treatment combined with sonohysterographic evaluation of women with postmenstrual bleeding as a result of previous cesarean delivery scar defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:370.e1–370.e4. DOI:10.1016/j. ajog.2008.11.038

  22. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, et al. Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85:429–434. DOI:10.1080/00016340500430436

  23. Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygun M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;124: 32 – 36. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.023

  24. Vervoort AJ, Van der Voet LF, Witmer M, Thurkow AL, Radder CM, van Kesteren PJ, 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;15:103. DOI:10.1186/s12905-015-0260-8

  25. Vervoort A, Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Brölmann H, Huirne J. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2018;125(3):317-25. DOI:10.1111/1471- 0528.14822

  26. Zhang Y. A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous cesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(4):535-41. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.007

  27. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, Xie HZ, Yao SZ. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:454–458. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.012

  28. Raimondo G, et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22: 297-301.:10.1016/j. jmig.2014.09.011

  29. Melo-Cerda I. Importancia ginecológica del istmocele ¿cómo y cuándo tratar? Ginecol Obstet Mex 2017 feb; 85 (2): 55-63. http://www.scielo. org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0300- 90412017000200055

  30. Menada Valenzano M, et al. Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after caesarean section: correlation with gynecological symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006; 61:216-22. doi:10.1159/000091497

  31. Chen HY, Chen SJ, Hsieh FJ. Observation of cesarean section scar by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990; 16: 443-47. PMID:2238250

  32. Regnard C, et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasoundm Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23: 289-92. doi:10.1002/uog.999

  33. Uppal T, et al. Sonographically detected caesarean section scar defects and menstrual irregularity. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011; 31: 413-16. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2 011.577252

  34. El-Mazny A, et al. Diagnostic correlation between sonohysterography and hysteroscopy in the assessment of uterine cavity after cesarean section. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2011; 16: 72-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mefs.2010.07.015

  35. Borges LM, et al. Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean Section. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010; 17: 361-64. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.02.007




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com