Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788588
Pictorial Review

Sonographic Assessment of Isthmocele and Its Obstetric Complications in Subsequent Pregnancies: A Pictorial Review

Prateek Agarwal
1   Department of Radiology, Narayana Health, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Rajesh Kumar Agarwal
2   Department of Ultrasound, Meera Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Arushi Purohit
3   Department of Pediatrics, St. John's Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Cesarean scar defect represents a significant pathology attributed to the rising prevalence of cesarean deliveries. While not commonplace, these lesions can give rise to severe obstetric consequences during subsequent pregnancies. Given the potential complications, it is advisable to screen for uterine niches using transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) or contrast-enhanced TVUS for individuals planning to conceive. Surgical repair and correction of these lesions can be crucial in averting obstetric and perinatal complications in future pregnancies. Furthermore, timely sonographic evaluation and reporting of isthmocele-related obstetric complications can help avoid serious issues.

Keywords

cesarean section - isthmocele - placenta accreta spectrum - cesarean scar pregnancy - retained products of conception - sonography


Publication History

Article published online:
19 July 2024

© 2024. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brölmann HAM, Huirne JAF. 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 2014; 121 (02) 236-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HAM, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37 (01) 93-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Glavind J, Madsen LD, Uldbjerg N, Dueholm M. Cesarean section scar measurements in non-pregnant women using three-dimensional ultrasound: a repeatability study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 201: 65-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fiocchi F, Petrella E, Nocetti L. et al. Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of uterine scar after previous caesarean section: comparison with 3T-magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging. Radiol Med (Torino) 2015; 120 (02) 228-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 van der Voet LLF, Limperg T, Veersema S. et al. Niches after cesarean section in a population seeking hysteroscopic sterilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 214: 104-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (12) 2695-2702
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI. et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53 (01) 107-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dominguez JA, Pacheco LA, Moratalla E. et al. Diagnosis and management of isthmocele (cesarean scar defect): a SWOT analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2023; 62 (03) 336-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Budny-Winska J, Pomorski M. Uterine niche after cesarean section: a review of diagnostic methods. Ginekol Pol 2021; 92 (10) 726-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jordans IPM, Verberkt C, De Leeuw RA. et al. Definition and sonographic reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy in early gestation: modified Delphi method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 59 (04) 437-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Antila-Långsjö RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219 (05) 458.e1-458.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Zimmer M. Prediction of uterine dehiscence using ultrasonographic parameters of cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 365-375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Savukyne E, Machtejeviene E, Paskauskas S, Ramoniene G, Nadisauskiene RJ. Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of cesarean section scar niche in pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57 (10) 1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ash A, Smith A, Maxwell D. Caesarean scar pregnancy. BJOG 2007; 114 (03) 253-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ko JKY, Wan HL, Ngu SF, Cheung VYT, Ng EHY. Cesarean scar molar pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119 (2 Pt 2): 449-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vial Y, Petignat P, Hohlfeld P. Pregnancy in a cesarean scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16 (06) 592-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fu L, Luo Y, Huang J. Cesarean scar pregnancy with expectant management. J Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 48: 1683-1690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Calì G, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J. et al. Outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51 (02) 169-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44 (03) 346-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Timor-Tritsch IE, Haynes MC, Monteagudo A, Khatib N, Kovács S. Ultrasound diagnosis and management of acquired uterine enhanced myometrial vascularity/arteriovenous malformations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (06) 731.e1-731.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shainker SA, Coleman B, Timor-Tritsch IE. et al; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. Special Report of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Placenta Accreta Spectrum Ultrasound Marker Task Force: consensus on definition of markers and approach to the ultrasound examination in pregnancies at risk for placenta accreta spectrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (01) B2-B14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Finberg HJ, Williams JW. Placenta accreta: prospective sonographic diagnosis in patients with placenta previa and prior cesarean section. J Ultrasound Med 1992; 11 (07) 333-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Abinader RR, Macdisi N, El Moudden I, Abuhamad A. First-trimester ultrasound diagnostic features of placenta accreta spectrum in low-implantation pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 59 (04) 457-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G. et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy and early placenta accreta share common histology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43 (04) 383-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Thakur M, Strug MR, De Paredes JG, Rambhatla A, Munoz MIC. Ultrasonographic technique to differentiate enhanced myometrial vascularity/arteriovenous malformation from retained products of conception. J Ultrasound 2022; 25 (02) 379-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Vardar Z, Dupuis CS, Goldstein AJ, Siddiqui E, Vardar BU, Kim YH. Pelvic ultrasonography of the postpartum uterus in patients presenting to the emergency room with vaginal bleeding and pelvic pain. Ultrasonography 2022; 41 (04) 782-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rosa F, Perugin G, Schettini D. et al. Imaging findings of cesarean delivery complications: cesarean scar disease and much more. Insights Imaging 2019; 10 (01) 98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kamaya A, Petrovitch I, Chen B, Frederick CE, Jeffrey RB. Retained products of conception: spectrum of color Doppler findings. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28 (08) 1031-1041
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wang LL, Yang HX, Chen JY, Fan LX, Zhang XX. [Prediction and analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with cesarean scar diverticulum]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2022; 57 (08) 587-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Liang HS, Jeng C-J, Sheen T-C, Lee F-K, Yang YC, Tzeng CR. First-trimester uterine rupture from a placenta percreta. A case report. J Reprod Med 2003; 48 (06) 474-478
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Honig A, Rieger L, Thanner F, Eck M, Sutterlin M, Dietl J. Placenta percreta with subsequent uterine rupture at 15 weeks of gestation after two previous cesarean sections. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2005; 31 (05) 439-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347 (8997): 281-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Uharček P, Brešťanský A, Ravinger J, Máňová A, Zajacová M. Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness at term in women with previous cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 292 (03) 609-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, de Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42 (02) 132-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar