Background:The myometrium at the location of the CS (caesarean section) scars, also
known as residual myometrium thickness (RMT), is larger after a double-layer
uterine closure procedure than following a single-layer one. It may lessen the
formation of a niche that is the myometrium’s disruption at the location of the
scar of the uterus. Gynecological manifestations, obstetric problems in a
future pregnancy and birth, and maybe subfertility are linked to thin RMT and a
niche. Objective: To ascertain if double-layer
unlocked closure of the uterus is better than single-layer one in terms of
post-menstrual spotting and niche development following a first CS. Patients and Methods: In this randomized clinical study, 287
patients were evaluated for qualifying. Of all eligible individuals, 57
patients were excluded from the study based on the inclusion criteria. Results: The variation in ages, gestational age, body mass index (BMI), and
cesarean section indications between the two assigned groups is statistically
insignificant. However, postmenstrual spotting was statistically significantly
more common in single-layer group compared to in double-group. The current
study revealed ultrasound findings suggestive of niche formation was
statistically significantly more common in single-layer group compared to in
double-layer group. Conclusion: As evident from the current study, it demonstrates
the advantages of double-layer unlocked closure of the uterus over single-layer
one in terms of post-menstrual spotting and niche development following
first-time cs. Thus, we deduced that fewer niches are formed, and fewer
menstrual spotting occurs in the presence of double unlocked layers closure. To
ascertain the impact of uterus closure method on post-operative niche
development and the risk of obstetrics and gynaecological problems, further
prospective trials with extended follow-up periods are required.
References
[1]
Tekiner, N.B., Çetin, B.A., Türkgeldi, L.S., Yılmaz, G., Polat, İ. and Gedikbaşı, A. (2018) Evaluation of Cesarean Scar after Single- and Double-Layer Hysterotomy Closure: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 297, 1137-1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4702-z
[2]
Vachon-Marceau, C., Demers, S., Bujold, E., Roberge, S., Gauthier, R.J., Pasquier, J.C., Girard, M., Chaillet, N., Boulvain, M. and Jastrow, N. (2017) Single versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure at Cesarean: Impact on Lower Uterine Segment Thickness at Next Pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 217, 65-e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.042
[3]
Roberge, S., Boutin, A., Chaillet, N., Moore, L., Jastrow, N., Demers, S. and Bujold, E. (2016) Systematic Review of Cesarean Scar Assessment in the Nonpregnant State: Imaging Techniques and Uterine Scar Defect. American Journal of Perinatology, 29, 465-471. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1304829
[4]
Stegwee, S.I., Jordans, I., van der Voet, L.F., van de Ven, P.M., Ket, J., Lambalk, C.B., de Groot, C., Hehenkamp, W. and Huirne, J. (2018) Uterine Caesarean Closure Techniques Affect Ultrasound Findings and Maternal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BJOG, 125, 1097-1108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15048
[5]
Sevket, O., Ates, S., Molla, T., Ozkal, F., Uysal, O. and Dansuk, R. (2014) Hydrosonographic Assessment of the Effects of 2 Different Suturing Techniques on Healing of the Uterine Scar after Cesarean Delivery. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 125, 219-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.013
[6]
Bennich, G., Rudnicki, M., Wilken-Jensen, C., Lousen, T., Lassen, P.D. and Wøjdemann, K. (2016) Impact of Adding a Second Layer to a Single Unlocked Closure of a Cesarean Uterine Incision: Randomized Controlled Trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 47, 417-422.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15792
[7]
Tower, A.M. and Frishman, G.N. (2013) Cesarean Scar Defects: An Underrecognized Cause of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Other Gynecologic Complications. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 20, 562-572.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.03.008
[8]
Valentin, L. (2013) Prediction of Scar Integrity and Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27, 285-295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003
[9]
van der Voet, L.F., Bij de Vaate, A.M., Veersema, S., Brölmann, H.A. and Huirne, J.A. (2014) Long-Term Complications of Caesarean Section. The Niche in the Scar: A Prospective Cohort Study on Niche Prevalence and Its Relation to Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. BJOG, 121, 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12542
[10]
DHS Program—Demographic and Health Surveys (2015) USAID.
http://dhsprogram.com/
[11]
Pomorski, M., Fuchs, T. and Zimmer, M. (2014) Prediction of Uterine Dehiscence Using Ultrasonographic Parameters of Cesarean Section Scar in the Nonpregnant Uterus: A Prospective Observational Study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14, 365. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-014-0365-3
[12]
Sholapurkar, S.L. (2018) Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 10, 166-173.
https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3271w
[13]
Glavind, J., Madsen, L.D., Uldbjerg, N. and Dueholm, M. (2013) Ultrasound Evaluation of Cesarean Scar after Single- and Double-Layer Uterotomy Closure: A Cohort Study. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 42, 207-212.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12376