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
  • [21] Single- Versus Double-Layer Closure of the Hysterotomy Incision During Cesarean Delivery and Risk of Uterine Rupture EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Roberge, Stephanie
    Chaillet, Nils
    Boutin, Amelie
    Moore, Lynne
    Jastrow, Nicole
    Brassard, Normand
    Gauthier, Robert J.
    Hudic, Igor
    Shipp, Thomas D.
    Weimar, Charlotte H. E.
    Fatusic, Zlatan
    Demers, Suzanne
    Bujold, Emmanuel
    OBSTETRICAL & GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2012, 67 (01) : 14 - 15
  • [22] 62Single-Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kar, I.
    Qayum, K.
    BJS-BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 109
  • [23] Re: Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure Reply
    Saccone, C.
    Sardo, A. Di Spiezio
    Berghella, V.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 50 (05) : 666 - +
  • [24] Single- vs. double-layer uterine incision closure at primary cesarean section and adhesion formation
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    Caughey, Aaron
    El-Sayed, Yasser
    Daniels, Kay
    Lyell, Deirdre
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 197 (06) : S77 - S77
  • [25] Ultrasound Predictability of Lower Uterine Segment Cesarean Section Scar Thickness
    Tazion, Shazia
    Hafeez, Maimoona
    Manzoor, Rukhsana
    Rana, Tashhir
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2018, 28 (05): : 361 - 364
  • [27] Beyond single- vs double-layer closure: optimizing uterine repair in cesarean delivery with endometrium-free technique
    Antoine, Clarel
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2025, 232 (03) : e198 - e198
  • [28] Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section
    Sen, S
    Malik, S
    Salhan, S
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2004, 87 (03) : 215 - 219
  • [29] Lower uterine segment thickness in assessing whether cesarean scar pregnancy patients could be treated with suction curettage
    Wang, Sheng
    Li, Ya
    Ma, Xiangyi
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2020, 33 (19): : 3332 - 3337
  • [30] Impact of Methods for Uterine Incision Closure on Repeat Caesarean Section Scar of Lower Uterine Segment
    Yasmin, Shakila
    Sadaf, Joveria
    Fatima, Naheed
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2011, 21 (09): : 522 - 526