Two dimension versus three dimension ultrasound assessment of caesarean section scars

Sherif Salah El-Deen Fahmy; Hany Ahmed Farouk; Salah Mohamed Ali Maklad; Abdou Saeed Ait-Allah

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.5354

Authors

Sherif Salah El-Deen Fahmy
drsherif.s2010@gmail.com
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aswan University, Egypt
Hany Ahmed Farouk Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aswan University, Egypt
Salah Mohamed Ali Maklad Department of Radiodiagnosis, Faculty of Medicine, Aswan University, Egypt
Abdou Saeed Ait-Allah Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Egypt

Keywords:

Two Dimension Ultrasound, Three Dimension Ultrasound, Caesarean Section Scars

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound (US) is now used as an imaging modality for the evaluation of lower uterine segment (LUS). A number of reports of sonographic evaluation of LUS have appeared in literature. It has been speculated that thickness of the LUS is related to the quality of wound healing. There is strong correlation between the anatomic status of scarred LUS as assessed by USG and its functional status which is tested during labour. Objective: The aim of this work was to investigate the accuracy of two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound in measurement of Caesarean section scar thickness. Patients and methods: This study was cross sectional study, conducted in Aswan University Hospital. The ultrasound examinations were conducted in the Obstetrics and Gynecology department between June 2017 and September 2021. The study included 150 pregnant females with previous one or two cesarean sections (CS) (aged 20-41y; mean 32.5y), underwent TA 2D and 3D US for assessment of the LUS thickness at 37-39 gestational weeks, before planning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Basic E, Basic-Cetkovic V, Kozaric H, Rama A. (2012): Ultrasound evaluation of uterine scar after cesarean section. Acta Inform Med., 20: 149-53.

Tahseen S, Griffith S. (2010): Vaginal birth after two Cesarean sections (VBAC-2)- a systematic review with metanalysis of success rate and adverse outcome of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) Cesarean sections. BJOG, 117: 5-19.

Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Sponge CY, Varner MW. (2004): Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labour after Cesarean delivery. N Eng J Med., 351:2581-2589.

Trojano G, Damiani G, Olivieri C, Villa M, Malvasi A, Alfonso R, Loverro M, Cicinelli E. (2019): VBAC: antenatal predictors of success. Acta Biomed., 90: 300-09.

Rasheedy R, Sammour H, Elkholy A, Fadel E. (2019): Agreement between transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod., 48: 827-31.

Tazion S, Hafeez M, Manzoor R, Rana T. (2018): Ultrasound Predictability of Lower Uterine Segment Cesarean Section Scar Thickness. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak., 28: 361-64.

Seliger G, Muendane A, Chaoui K, Hiller G, Lautenschlager C, Costa S, Tchirikov M. (2018): Does ultrasound-guided intervention during repeat cesarean sections improve uterine scar architecture and reduce the number of scars? A prospective controlled clinical intervention trial. J Perinat Med., 46: 857-66.

Gupta S, Boppudi S, Gupta T, Gupta N. (2020): Role of 3 D Ultrasound in Objective Evaluation of Caesarean Scar. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research, 14: 1-4.

Shih JC. (2004): Cesarean scar pregnancy: diagnosis with three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound and 3D power Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol., 23: 306-7.

Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FM, Nastri CO, Filho FM. (2009): Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two‐and three‐dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 33: 301-06.

Cheung VYT, Yang F, Leung KY. (2011): 2D versus 3D transabdominal sonography for the measurement of lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 114: 234-37.

Qureshi B, Inafuku K, Oshima K, Masamoto H, Kanazawa K. (1997): Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment to predict the integrity and quality of cesarean scar during pregnancy: a prospective study. Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 183: 55-65.

Sarwar I, Akram F, Khan A, Malik S, Islam A, Khan K. (2020): Validity of transabdominal ultrasound scan in the prediction of uterine scar thickness. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 32: 68-72.

Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S. (2004): Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 87: 215-19.

Cheung VYT, Constantinescu OC, Ahluwalia BS. (2004): Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 23: 1441-47.

Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, McIndoe A, Ghaem‐Maghami S, Timmerman D. (2013): Changes in Cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 41: 556-62.

Gizzo S, Zambon A, Saccardi C, Patrelli TS, Di Gangi S, Carrozzini M, Bertocco A, Capobianco G, Antona DD, Nardelli GB. (2013): Effective anatomical and functional status of the lower uterine segment at term: estimating the risk of uterine dehiscence by ultrasound. Fertil Steril., 99: 496-501.

Swift BE, Shah PS, Farine D. (2019): Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand., 98: 830-41.

Fukuda M, Fukuda K, Shimizu T, Bujold E. (2016): Ultrasound assessment of lower uterine segment thickness during pregnancy, labour, and the postpartum period. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 38: 134-40.

Uharček P, Brešťanský A, Ravinger J, Máňová A, Zajacová M. (2015): Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness at term in women with previous cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet., 292: 609-12.

Rosenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ. (1996): Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet, 347:281-84.

Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G, Suzuki S, Araki T. (2000): Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labor evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography , Journal of Nippon Medical School, 67: 352-56.

Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, De Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. (2013): 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 in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 42: 132-39.

Tazion S, Hafeez M, Manzoor R, Rana T. (2018): Ultrasound predictability of lower uterine segment cesarean section scar thickness. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak., 28: 361-64.

Sharma C, Surya M, Soni A, Soni PK, Verma A, Verma S. (2015): Sonographic prediction of scar dehiscence in women with previous cesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 65: 97-103.

Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ. (2009): Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol., 201: 320-26.

Ramteke S, Wankhede S. (2020): Scar Thickness as a Variable for Deciding the Mode of Delivery in Patients with Previous One Caesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Study. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 19: 21-25.

Ganapathi T, Chaudhari HK. (2018): Ultrasonographic measurement of uterine lower segment scar thickness in cases of previous one caesarean section and obstetric outcome. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 7: 4454-61.

Pahirah N, Laosooksathit W, Kongsomboon K, Kitporntheranunt M. (2021): Sonographic Lower Uterine Segment Thickness to Predict Cesarean Scar Defect in Pregnant Women. Siriraj Medical Journal, 73(5): 1-3.