Prognostic value of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment during pregnancy in women with a scar after cesarean section: literature review
https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0771-308
Abstract
The article presents a review of literature focusing on the measurement of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with a uterine scar in order to predict the risk of uterine rupture. The results of the review demonstrated heterogeneity among studies and the absence of an agreed threshold for lower segment thickness, which makes predicting the risk of uterine rupture based on lower segment measurements in women with a uterine scar uncertain and unreasonable.
About the Authors
M. A. Esetov
Dagestan State Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation; Medical Center “Celitel”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Murad A. Esetov – MD, Doct. of Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Radiation Diagnostics and Radiation Therapy, with a course in ultrasound diagnostics, Dagestan State Medical University; physician expert in ultrasound diagnostics in perinatology and gynecology, Medical Center “Celitel”, Makhachkala
https://orsid.org/0000-0001-5955-7979
A. N. Kallaeva
Dagestan State Medical University, Ministry of Healthcare of Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Abidat N. Kallaeva – MD, Doct. of Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Radiation Diagnostics and Radiation Therapy, with a course in ultrasound diagnostics, Dagestan State Medical University, Makhachkala
https://orsid.org/0000-0003-2164-3083
References
1. Hellerstein S., Feldman S., Duan T. China's 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG. 2015; 122: 160–164. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12971
2. Cui X., Wu S. Ultrasonic assessment has high sensitivity for pregnant women with previous cesarean section occurring uterine dehiscence and rupture: A STARD-compliant article. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99 (31): e21448. http://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000021448
3. Kurtser M.A., Breslav I.Yu., Barykina O.P. et al. Uterine scar dehiscence following caesarean section. Obstetrics and Gynecology” (Moscow). 2022; 2: 59–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.2.59-64 (In Russian)
4. Clinical practice guidelines “Postoperative uterine scar requiring maternal medical care during pregnancy, partum and the postpartum period”. 2024. Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/schema/635_2? (2024, accessed 5.09.2024) (In Russian)
5. MacDorman M., Declercq E., Menacker F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin. Perinatol. 2011; 38 (2): 179–192. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007
6. McMahon M.J., Luther E.R., Bowes W.A. Jr., Olshan A.F. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996; 335 (10): 689–695. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199609053351001
7. Lydon-Rochelle M., Holt V.L., Easterling T.R., Martin D.P. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001; 345 (1): 3–8. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200107053450101.
8. Hofmeyr G.J., Say L., Gülmezoglu A.M. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. BJOG. 2005; 112 (9): 1221–1228. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x
9. Zhao Y., Tu J., Chang Y. et al. Clinical analysis of incomplete rupture of the uterus secondary to previous cesarean section. Open Med. (Wars). 2024; 19 (1): 20240927. http://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-0927
10. Shmakov R.G., Baev O.R., Pekarev O.G. et al. Surgical tactics of cesarean section operation. Tutorial. Moscow: Binom Publishing House, 2019. 82 p. (In Russian)
11. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: ACOG practice bulletin №205 summary. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 133 (2): 393–395. http://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003079
12. Jastrow N., Chaillet N., Roberge S. et al. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2010; 32 (4): 321–327. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34475-9
13. Kok N., Wiersma I.C., Opmeer B.C. et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 42: 132–139. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12479
14. Whiting P., Rutjes A.W., Reitsma J.B. et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2003; 3: 25. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
15. Sharma C., Surya M., Soni A. et al. Sonographic prediction of scar dehiscence in women with previous cesarean section. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2015; 65 (2): 97–103. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0630-4
16. Bujold E., Jastrow N., Simoneau J. et al. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 201 (3): 320.e1–e6. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.014
17. Gizzo S., Zambon A., Saccardi C. et al. Effective anatomical and functional status of the lower uterine segment at term: estimating the risk of uterine dehiscence by ultrasound. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99 (2): 496–501. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.10.019
18. Hoffmann J., Exner M., Bremicker K. et al. Comparison of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with and without previous cesarean section in 3T MRI. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19 (1): 160. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2314-7
19. Sen S., Malik S., Salhan S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2004; 87 (3): 215–219. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.07.023
20. Swift B.E., Shah P.S., Farine D. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2019; 98 (7): 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13585
21. Marchant I., Lessard L., Bergeron C. et al. Measurement of Lower Uterine Segment Thickness to Detect Uterine Scar Defect: Comparison of Transabdominal and Transvaginal Ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. 2023; 42 (7): 1491–1496. http://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16161
22. Sarwar I., Akram F., Khan A. et al. Validity Of Transabdominal Ultrasound Scan In The Prediction Of Uterine Scar Thickness. J. Ayub. Med. Coll. Abbottabad. 2020; 32 (1): 68–72.
23. Cheung V.Y.T., Constantinescu O.C., Ahluwalia B.S. Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. J. Ultrasound Med. 2004; 23 (11): 1441–1447. http://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2004.23.11.1441
24. Kement M., Kement C.E., Kokanali M.K., Doganay M. Prediction of uterine dehiscence via machine learning by using lower uterine segment thickness and clinical features. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022; 2 (4): 100085. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100085
25. Rozenberg P., Sénat M.V., Deruelle P. et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment before delivery of women with a prior cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 226 (2): 253. e1–253.e9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.005
26. Savina L.V., Yashchuk AG., Maslennikov A.M., Savin A.M. Criteria for the selection of women with a uterine scar for delivery through the natural canal. In: Materials of the All-Army Scientific and Practical Conference Dedicated to the 180th Anniversary of the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy. Saint Petersburg, Military Medical Academy named of the S.M. Kirov. 2022: 82–90. (In Russian)
27. Savukyne E., Machtejeviene E., Kliucinskas M., Paskauskas S. Cesarean Scar Thickness Decreases during Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58 (3): 407. http://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030407
28. McLeish S.F., Murchison A.B., Smith D.M. et al. Predicting Uterine Rupture Risk Using Lower Uterine Segment Measurement During Pregnancy with Cesarean History: How Reliable Is It? A Review. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2023; 78 (5): 302–308. http://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000001143
29. Yang H., Zhao Y., Tu J. et al. Clinical analysis of incomplete rupture of the uterus secondary to previous cesarean section. Open Med. (Wars). 2024; 19 (1): 2 0240927. http://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-0927
30. Paquette K., Markey S., Roberge S. et al. First and third trimester uterine scar thickness in women after previous caesarean: A prospective comparative study. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Can. 2019; 41 (1): 59–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.02.020
31.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Esetov M.A., Kallaeva A.N. Prognostic value of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment during pregnancy in women with a scar after cesarean section: literature review. Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics. 2025;31(2):57-66. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0771-308
Views:
420
Email this article 