medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3062 (Electronic)

2020, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Obstetricia y Ginecología 2020; 46 (3)

Clinical and ultrasonographic presentation of isthmocele in patients with previous cesarean section

López TLF, Quirós SJ, Serna HLC, López RMF, Echavarría RLG, Campo CMN, Cuesta CDP

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 1-15
PDF size: 442.37 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Delivery care by cesarean section is a frequent procedure in which a defect known as isthmocele can appear with frequent clinical consequences such as hemorrhage, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia and acute and chronic pelvic pain.
Objectives: To describe the clinical and ultrasonographic findings in patients with isthmocele after performing a cesarean section and the possible relationship with the grade / size of the lesion.
Methods: Cross-sectional, analytical study was carried out in patients with isthmocele and a history of caesarean section evaluated from May 2016 to May 2017, in three hospitals in Medellín, Colombia. Patients with suspected gynecological cancer or with another uterine cause that explained the symptoms were excluded.
Results: Twenty-six patients were analyzed, whom suffered conditions associated clinical manifestations such as chronic pelvic pain (80.8%), abnormal uterine bleeding (73.1%), pelvic infection (46.2%), and secondary infertility (15.4%). 34.6% were classified as grade I and II and the rest was classified as grade III. Other ultrasonographic findings were uterine myomatosis category 4-5 from the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (42.3%), retroverted uterus (19.2%), endometrial polyps (11.5%), ovary simple cysts (15, 4%) and endometriosis (7.7%). No association was found between the severity of the isthmocele with a previous number of cesarean sections and clinical symptoms.
Conclusions: Isthmocele is a direct sequela of cesarean delivery. Clinical manifestations such as abnormal uterine bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, secondary infertility, and pelvic infection are common. There is a relationship between the severity of the isthmocele and the clinical manifestations of the disease.


REFERENCES

  1. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas. Nacimientos por tipo de parto. Bogotá: DANE; [Internet]. 2016 [citado 01/05/2017]. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/poblacion/2017/30-marzo-2017/nacimientos2016p/Cuadro4-NACIMIENTOS-2016-PRELIMINAR.xls

  2. Pérez-Medina T, Sancho-Saúco J, Ríos M, Pereira A, Argila N, Cabezas E, et al. Hysteroscopy in Pregnancy-Related Conditions: Descriptive Analysis in 273 Patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet]. 2014 [citado 09/07/2019];21(3):417-25. Disponible en: https://www.jmig.org/article/S1553-4650(13)01371-X/abstract

  3. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, Marra E, Moncini I, Bruni L, et al. Surgical Hysteroscopic Treatment of Cesarean-Induced Isthmocele in Restoring Fertility: Prospective Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet]. 2011 [citado 09/07/2019];18(2):234-7. Disponible en: https://www.jmig.org/article/S1553-4650(10)01266-5/abstract

  4. Diaz SD, Jones JE, Seryakov M, Mann WJ. Uterine rupture and dehiscence: ten-year review and case–control study. South Med J [Internet]. 2002 [citado 09/07/2019];95(4):431–5. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11958242/

  5. Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior Cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 1985 [citado 09/07/2019];66(1):89–92. Disponible en: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1985/07000/Placenta_Previa_Accreta_and_Prior_Cesarean.20.aspx

  6. Tower A, Frishman G. Cesarean Scar Defects: An Underrecognized Cause of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Other Gynecologic Complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet]. 2013 [citado 09/07/2019];20(5):562–72. Disponible en: https://www.jmig.org/article/S1553-4650(13)00155-6/abstract

  7. Marotta M, Donnez J. Laparoscopic Repair of Post-Cesarean Section Uterine Scar Defects Diagnosed in Nonpregnant Women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet]. 2013 [citado 09/07/2019];20(3):386-91. Disponible en: https://www.jmig.org/article/S1553-4650(12)01331-3/abstract

  8. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2014 [citado 09/07/2019];43(4):372–82. Disponible en: https://www.sieog.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/istmoc.pdf

  9. Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S, BijdeVaate AJ, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG [Internet]. 2014 [citado 09/07/2019];121(2):145-56. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373589/

  10. Florio P, Filippeschi M, Moncini I, Marra E, Franchini M, Gubbini G. Hysteroscopic treatment of the cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring infertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2012 [citado 09/07/2019];24(3):180-6. Disponible en: https://europepmc.org/article/med/22395067

  11. Vikhereva O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2009 [citado 09/07/2019];34(1):90–7. Disponible en: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.6395

  12. Fabres C, Aviles G, De La Jara C, Escalona J, Muñoz JF, Mackenna A, et al. The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med [Internet]. 2003 [citado 09/07/2019];22(7):695–700. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12862268/

  13. Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2009 [citado 09/07/2019];34(1):85–9. Disponible en: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.6405

  14. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med [Internet]. 1999 [citado 09/07/2019]; 18(1)13–6. Disponible en: https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/9952074/Cesarean_section_scar_as_a_cause_of_abnormal_vaginal_bleeding:_diagnosis_by_sonohysterography_

  15. Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, Moore L, Jastrow N, Demers S, et al. Systematic Review of Cesarean Scar Assessment in the Nonpregnant State: Imaging Techniques and Uterine Scar Defect. Am J Perinatol [Internet]. 2012 [citado 09/07/2019];29(6):465-72. Disponible en: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0032-1304829

  16. Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2012 [citado 09/07/2019];39(3):252-9. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21858885/

  17. 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 [Internet]. 2011 [citado 09/07/2019];37(1):93-9. Disponible en: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.8864

  18. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1119-26. Disponible en: DOI: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20604776/

  19. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, Suzuki M, Tamakoshi K, 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 [Internet]. 2006 [citado 09/07/2019];85(9):429-43. Disponible en: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1080/00016340500430436

  20. Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygu ̈n M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol [Internet]. 2006 [citado 09/07/2019];124(1):32-6. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16023780/

  21. Uppal T, Lanzarone V, Mongelli M. Sonographically detected caesarean section scar defects and menstrual irregularity. J Obstet Gynaecol [Internet]. 2011 [citado 09/07/2019];31(5):413-6. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21627425/

  22. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J, et al. Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2008 [citado 09/07/2019];31(1):72–7. Disponible en: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.5200

  23. 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 gynecological symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest [Internet]. 2006 [citado 09/07/2019];61(4):216-22. Disponible en: https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/91497

  24. Borges L. Findings in Patients with Postmenstrual Spotting with Prior Cesarean Section. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology [Internet]. 2010 [citado 09/07/2019];17(3):361-4. Disponible en: https://www.jmig.org/article/S1553-4650(10)00083-X/abstract




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com