Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy

被引:32
|
作者
Vachon-Marceau, Chantale [1 ]
Demers, Suzanne [1 ,2 ]
Bujold, Emmanuel [1 ,2 ]
Roberge, Stephanie [2 ]
Gauthier, Robert J. [3 ]
Pasquier, Jean-Charles [4 ]
Girard, Mario [2 ]
Chaillet, Nils [1 ,2 ]
Boulvain, Michel [5 ]
Jastrow, Nicole [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Laval, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
[2] Univ Laval, CHU Quebec, Ctr Rech, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Montreal, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[4] Univ Sherbrooke, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Sherbrooke, PQ, Canada
[5] Univ Geneva, Hop Univ Geneve, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Fac Med, Geneva, Switzerland
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
cesarean; pregnancy; surgical technique; ultrasound; uterine scar; INTERDELIVERY INTERVAL; VAGINAL BIRTH; RUPTURE; RISK; DELIVERY; SECTION; TRIAL; LABOR; INCISION; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.042
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Uterine rupture is a potential life-threatening complication during a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Single-layer closure of the uterus at cesarean delivery has been associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture compared with double-layer closure. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement by ultrasound has been used to evaluate the quality of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery and is associated with the risk of uterine rupture. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of previous uterine closure on lower uterine segment thickness. STUDY DESIGN: Women with a previous single low-transverse cesarean delivery were recruited at 34-38 weeks' gestation. Transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of the lower uterine segment thickness was performed by a sonographer blinded to clinical data. Previous operative reports were reviewed to obtain the type of previous uterine closure. Third-trimester lower uterine segment thickness at the next pregnancy was compared according to the number of layers sutured and according to the type of thread for uterine closure, using weighted mean differences and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1613 women recruited, with operative reports available, 495 (31%) had a single-layer and 1118 (69%) had a double-layer closure. The mean third-trimester lower uterine segment thickness was 3.3 +/- 1.3 mm and the proportion with lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm was 10.5%. Double-layer closure of the uterus was associated with a thicker lower uterine segment than single-layer closure (weighted mean difference: 0.11 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.21 mm). In multivariate logistic regression analyses, a double-layer closure also was associated with a reduced risk of lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm (odd ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.90). Compared with synthetic thread, the use of catgut for uterine closure had no significant impact on third-trimester lower uterine segment thickness (WMD: -0.10 mm; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.02 mm) or on the risk of lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.33). Finally, double-layer closure was associated with a reduced risk of uterine scar defect (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.61) at birth. CONCLUSION: Compared with single-layer closure, a double-layer closure of the uterus at previous cesarean delivery is associated with a thicker third-trimester lower uterine segment and a reduced risk of lower uterine segment thickness <2.0 mm in the next pregnancy. The type of thread for uterine closure has no significant impact on lower uterine segment thickness.
引用
收藏
页码:65.e1 / 65.e5
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Lower uterine-segment thickness in pregnancy subsequent cesarean section with double-layer barbed suture
    Barra, Fabio
    Centurioni, Maria Grazia
    Perrone, Umberto
    Paratore, Marco
    Evangelisti, Giulio
    Ferrero, Simone
    Gustavano, Claudio
    Alessandri, Franco
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2022, 129 : 98 - 98
  • [2] Single-versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture
    Gyamfi, C
    Juhasz, G
    Gyamfi, P
    Rochon, M
    Blumenfeld, Y
    Stone, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2004, 191 (06) : S183 - S183
  • [3] Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture
    Gyamfi, Cynthia
    Juhasz, Gabor
    Gyamfi, Phyllis
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    Stone, Joanne L.
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2006, 19 (10): : 639 - 643
  • [4] Impact of single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Vidaeff, AC
    Lucas, MJ
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (02) : 602 - 603
  • [5] The impact of a single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Joura, EA
    Nather, A
    Hohlagschwandtner, M
    Husslein, P
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 189 (03) : 895 - 895
  • [6] Impact of labor at prior cesarean on lower uterine segment thickness in subsequent pregnancy
    Jastrow, Nicole
    Gauthier, Robert J.
    Gagnon, Genevieve
    Leroux, Nathalie
    Beaudoin, Francois
    Bujold, Emmanuel
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 202 (06) : 563.e1 - 563.e7
  • [7] The impact of a single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Cruikshank, DP
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (01) : 295 - 296
  • [8] The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Bujold, E
    Bujold, C
    Hamilton, EF
    Harel, F
    Gauthier, RJ
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 186 (06) : 1326 - 1330
  • [9] The Never Ending Debate Single-Layer Versus Double-Layer Closure of the Uterine Incision at Cesarean Section
    Hegde, C. V.
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY OF INDIA, 2014, 64 (04): : 239 - 240
  • [10] The Never Ending Debate Single-Layer Versus Double-Layer Closure of the Uterine Incision at Cesarean Section
    C. V. Hegde
    The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 2014, 64 (4) : 239 - 240