Vol 91, No 11 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-11-30

open access

Page views 828
Article views/downloads 1205
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Morphological estimation of incomplete uterine scar rupture (dehiscence) in post- cesarean deliveries. Immunohistochemical studies

Maciej Zietek1, Małgorzata Szczuko2, Zbigniew Celewicz1
Pubmed: 33301163
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(11):685-692.

Abstract

Objectives: No studies were found that analysed the properties of the caesarean scar, therefore the new study analysed
the myometrial immunohistochemical expression of elastin, collagen type VI, alpha smooth muscle actin, smooth muscle
myosin heavy chain, and endothelial cell marker CD31.
The aim of the study was to determine the risk of uterine rupture in future pregnancies.
Material and methods: A total of 89 women of Caucasian ethnicity were eligible: 20 healthy pregnant women, who underwent
repeat caesarean section complicated by incomplete uterine scar rupture before labour, and 69 healthy pregnant
women, who underwent repeat caesarean section without subsequent uterine scar rupture as the control group. In all cases,
uterine tissue sample from the scarred region was collected during the caesarean section operation.
Results: The lack of observed significant changes of elastin, collagen type VI, alpha smooth muscle actin, smooth muscle
myosin heavy chain and endothelial cell marker CD31 concentrations in ruptured and unruptured uteri indicates that these
components cannot be found to be a marker of risk of uterine rupture in future pregnancies.
Conclusions: It could be suggested that the examined components do not contribute to the mechanism of maintaining
integrity and are not responsible for the biomechanical properties of the uterine scar.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2): e0148343.
  2. Chen Y, Han P, Wang YJ, et al. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 296(2): 355–361.
  3. Neuhaus W, Bauerschmitz G, Göhring U, et al. The risk of rupture of the uterus: an analysis of 1086 births after previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001; 21(3): 232–235.
  4. Sawada M, Matsuzaki S, Nakae R, et al. Treatment and repair of uterine scar dehiscence during cesarean section. Clin Case Rep. 2017; 5(2): 145–149.
  5. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(1): 43–50.
  6. Motomura K, Ganchimeg T, Nagata C, et al. Incidence and outcomes of uterine rupture among women with prior caesarean section: WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 44093.
  7. Lofrumento DD, Di Nardo MA, De Falco M, et al. Uterine Wound Healing: A Complex Process Mediated by Proteins and Peptides. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2017; 18(2): 125–128.
  8. Stegwee SI, Jordans I, van der Voet LF, et al. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018; 125(9): 1097–1108.
  9. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016; 388(10039): 62–72.
  10. Garg N, Rajkeerthi N, Dhananjaya S. Comparison of Various Uterine Closure Techniques of Caesarean Section. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Crit Care Obst Gyne. 2019; 5(3): 11.
  11. Vachon-Marceau C, Demers S, Bujold E, et al. Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(1): 65.e1–65.e5.
  12. Bennich G, Rudnicki M, Wilken-Jensen C, et al. Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a Cesarean uterine incision: randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47(4): 417–422.
  13. Stegwee SI, Jordans IPM, van der Voet LF, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development - the 2Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1): 85.
  14. Bérubé L, Arial M, Gagnon G, et al. Factors associated with lower uterine segment thickness near term in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011; 33(6): 581–587.
  15. Uharček P, Brešťanský A, Ravinger J, et al. Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness at term in women with previous cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 292(3): 609–612.
  16. Hoffmann J, Exner M, Bremicker K, et al. Comparison of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with and without previous cesarean section in 3 T MRI. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1): 160.
  17. Pollio F, Staibano S, Mascolo M, et al. Uterine dehiscence in term pregnant patients with one previous cesarean delivery: growth factor immunoexpression and collagen content in the scarred lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(2): 527–534.
  18. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 115(1): 5–10.
  19. Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Patel S, et al. Rupture of the uterine scar during term labour: contractility or biochemistry? BJOG. 2005; 112(1): 38–42.
  20. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010; 117(9): 1119–1126.
  21. Brahmalakshmy BL, Kushtagi P. Variables influencing the integrity of lower uterine segment in post-cesarean pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 291(4): 755–762.
  22. Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, et al. Myometrial wound healing post-Cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol. 2010; 177(1): 197–207.
  23. Wang J, Xu M, Liang R, et al. Oral administration of marine collagen peptides prepared from chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) improves wound healing following cesarean section in rats. Food Nutr Res. 2015; 59: 26411.
  24. Xue M, Jackson CJ. Extracellular Matrix Reorganization During Wound Healing and Its Impact on Abnormal Scarring. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2015; 4(3): 119–136.
  25. Darby IA, Zakuan N, Billet F, et al. The myofibroblast, a key cell in normal and pathological tissue repair. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016; 73(6): 1145–1157.
  26. Zakharova IS, Zhiven' MK, Saaya ShB, et al. Endothelial and smooth muscle cells derived from human cardiac explants demonstrate angiogenic potential and suitable for design of cell-containing vascular grafts. J Transl Med. 2017; 15(1): 54.
  27. Bönnemann CG. The collagen VI-related myopathies: muscle meets its matrix. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011; 7(7): 379–390.
  28. Cescon M, Gattazzo F, Chen P, et al. Collagen VI at a glance. J Cell Sci. 2015; 128(19): 3525–3531.
  29. Leppert PC, Jayes FL, Segars JH. The extracellular matrix contributes to mechanotransduction in uterine fibroids. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2014; 2014: 783289.
  30. Temmerman M. Caesarean section surgical techniques: all equally safe. Lancet. 2016; 388(10039): 8–9.
  31. Soret R, Mennetrey M, Bergeron KF, et al. Ente-Hirsch Study Group. A collagen VI-dependent pathogenic mechanism for Hirschsprung's disease. J Clin Invest. 2015; 125(12): 4483–4496.
  32. Bürgi J, Kunz B, Abrami L, et al. CMG2/ANTXR2 regulates extracellular collagen VI which accumulates in hyaline fibromatosis syndrome. Nat Commun. 2017; 8: 15861.
  33. Rajendran P, Rengarajan T, Thangavel J, et al. The vascular endothelium and human diseases. Int J Biol Sci. 2013; 9(10): 1057–1069.
  34. Liu Li, Shi GP. CD31: beyond a marker for endothelial cells. Cardiovasc Res. 2012; 94(1): 3–5.
  35. Profyris C, Tziotzios C, Do Vale I. Cutaneous scarring: Pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms, and scar reduction therapeutics Part I. The molecular basis of scar formation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012; 66(1): 1–10; quiz 11.