Pitfall in Ultrasound Evaluation of Uterine Scar from Prior Preterm Cesarean Section

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

We report two cases of women with a previous cesarean performed before active labor at 29 weeks of gestation who underwent sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment (LUS) at 36 weeks' gestation in their subsequent pregnancy. In both cases, uterine scar defect was detected on the upper part of the LUS, at ~9 to 11 cm from the cervical os, and was only visualized by the transabdominal approach. We suggest that early gestational age and the absence of labor at previous cesarean can lead to a higher uterine scar location on the LUS and, therefore, increase the risk of uterine rupture in subsequent pregnancy. The heterogeneity of uterine scar location could explain discrepancies observed in studies using the transabdominal versus the transvaginal approach or both regarding the predictive value of LUS measurements for uterine rupture.

• References

• 1 Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 320- ; e1–e6
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 321-327
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Marasinghe JP, Senanayake H, Randeniya C, Seneviratne HR, Arambepola C, Devlieger R. Comparison of transabdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound to measure thickness of the lower uterine segment at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 107: 140-142
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Sciscione AC, Landon MB, Leveno KJ , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Previous preterm cesarean delivery and risk of subsequent uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 648-653
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Jastrow N, Gauthier RJ, Gagnon G, Leroux N, Beaudoin F, Bujold E. Impact of labor at prior cesarean on lower uterine segment thickness in subsequent pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 563 ; e1–e7
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Algert CS, Morris JM, Simpson JM, Ford JB, Roberts CL. Labor before a primary cesarean delivery: reduced risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1061-1066
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 1326-1330
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S , et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 43-50
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Boutin A, Bérubé L, Girard M, Bujold E. Labour before a Caesarean section and the morphology of the lower uterine segment in the next pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33: 105-
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Blackwell SC. Predicting VBAC success: from theory to clinical practice. Am J Perinatol 2009; 26: 691-692
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB , et al. Does information available at admission for delivery improve prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean?. Am J Perinatol 2009; 26: 693-701
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB , et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 56 ; e1–e6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar