ABSTRACT
Background: Caesarean section (CS) is the most common obstetric surgery performed world-wide. The objective of this study was to correlate the antenatal sonographic lower uterine segment (LUS) scar thickness in women with previous one cesarean section with intra operative LUS scar grading.Methods: A Prospective observational study was conducted from December 2014 to November 2015. In a tertiary care center. 200 pregnant women from ANC clinic with previous one LSCS were recruited. Transabdominal USG done between 36-38 weeks. LUS thickness was measured from bladder wall-myometrium interphase and myometrium-chorioamniotic membrane inter phase. Intraoperative grading of LUS scar was done. Based on grading of scar participants were assigned into scar dehiscence group (grade III and IV LUS scar) and non-dehiscence group (Grade I and II LUS scar).Results: Mean LUS thickness was 3.41±0.623 mm (range: 2-7 mm). Mean LUS thickness in the scar dehiscence group and non-dehiscence group was 2.98±0.55 mm and 3.48±0.60 mm (P value < 0.05) respectively. A cut off value of 3.5 mm was derived from ROC with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 92.6%, 54.3%, 24.0%, 97.8%, respectively. The present study reported 27 (13.5%) cases of scar dehiscence.Conclusions: Ultra-sonographic evaluation of LUS thickness correlated significantly with intraoperative LUS appearance. USG evaluation of LUS can be used as a screening test to predict the LUS scar integrity. Risk of dehiscence is increased in women with thin LUS i.e. sonographic LUS thickness of < 3.5 mm and needs to be further evaluated. Women with previous one LSCS with thick LUS i.e. sonographic LUS thickness of > 3.5 mm, can be counselled regarding TOLAC if not contraindicated.
ABSTRACT
Background: Uterine scar dehiscence is a complication in which scar tissue remaining from previous C-section is disrupted and separated. Its incidence ranges between 0.2%-4.3% of all pregnancies with previous caesarean. It is asymptomatic in 48% of patients and thus is a serious complication because if not predicted it can lead to uterine rupture.Methods: Patients included in the study were of previous caesarean who were taken for repeat caesarean and scar dehiscence was not predicted preoperatively but seen intra-operatively. History, symptoms, signs and radiological investigations were interpreted to find out single or multiple factors responsible for scar dehiscence.Results: Incidence of scar dehiscence was found to be 8.3% .Scar dehiscence was detected in 55% of cases who were gravida 3 and above, all patients with intraoperative scar tenderness, 35% of patients with scar thickness ˂2mm, 70% cases with POG 37-40 weeks, 65% of patients with interpregnancy interval˂18 months,86.6% of patients with scar dehiscence had baby birth weight ˃3kg.Conclusions: Authors concluded that a single factor which has maximum predictive value for scar dehiscence is scar tenderness.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: After globally acceptance of planned vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC), the mode of induction is still a matter of debate and requires further discussion. We aimed to study obstetric outcomes in post-cesarean patients undergoing induction of labor with prostaglandin gel compared with patients who developed spontaneous labor pains. METHODS: All patients at 34 weeks or more of gestation with previous one cesarean section eligible for trial of labor after cesarean section admitted in a labor room within one year were divided in 2 groups. Group one consisted of patients who experienced the spontaneous onset of labor pains and group 2 consisted of patients who underwent induction of labor with prostaglandin gel. They were analyzed for maternofetal outcomes. Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, and chi-square test were applied using SPSS 20 software for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in maternal age, parity, and fetal weight, but different in bishop score, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcome. Admisson bishop score was 6.61±2.51 in group 1 and 3.15±1.27 in group 2 (P<0.005). In the patients who experienced spontaneous labor, 86.82% had successful VBAC. In the patients with induced labor, 64.34% had successful VBAC with an average dose of gel of 1.65±0.75. Both groups had one case each of uterine rupture. The neonatal intensive care unit admission rate was 4.1% in group one and 10.4% in group 2. CONCLUSION: This study reflects that supervised labor induction with prostaglandin gel in previous one cesarean section patients is a safe and effective option.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Cesarean Section , Fetal Weight , Intensive Care, Neonatal , Labor Pain , Labor, Induced , Maternal Age , Parity , Prostaglandins , Trial of Labor , Uterine Rupture , Vaginal Birth after CesareanABSTRACT
Uterine scar dehiscence following laparoscopic myomectomy rarely occurs but can compromise both maternal and fetal well-being in subsequent pregnancy. We here present two cases of pregnancy complicated by preterm birth that resulted from uterine scar dehiscence following laparoscopic myomectomy. First case was a nulligravida who had scar dehiscence at 26 weeks of gestation after having a laparoscopic myomectomy 3 months prior to conception. Two weeks later, we observed her fetal leg protruding through the defect. The other case was a primigravida with a history of prior cesarean delivery, whose sonography revealed myomectomy scar dehiscence at 31 weeks of gestation. Within a few hours after observing, the patient complained of abdominal pain that was aggravating as fetal leg protruded through the defect. In both cases, babies were born by emergency cesarean section. Conservative management can be one of treatment options for myomectomy scar dehiscence in preterm pregnancy. However, clinicians should always be aware of the possibility of obstetric emergencies.