open access

Vol 91, No 9 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-09-30
Get Citation

Dehiscence of cesarean section scar during pregnancy and delivery — risk factors

Marwan Odeh, Rawan Karwani, Oleg Schnaider, Maya Wolf, Jacob Bornstein
DOI: 10.5603/GP.2020.0086
·
Pubmed: 33030734
·
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(9):539-543.

open access

Vol 91, No 9 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-09-30

Abstract

Objective: We wanted to identify risk factors for dehiscence of cesarean section (CS) scars in patients undergoing repeated
cesarean section.
Material and methods: This was a retrospective case-control study over a 3-year period in our medical center (2011–2014),
comparing women who had repeated CS without complications and women diagnosed with dehiscence. Data were collected
from medical records and the groups were compared for demographic and obstetrical data.
Results: Dehiscence was identified in 27 women, while 54 women without dehiscence were the control group. Statistically
significant differences were found in the need for augmentation, the number of previous cesarean sections, cesarean section
in the active phase of labor and length of hospitalization.
Discussion: The need for augmentation of labor, CS in the nonactive stage and more than one cesarean section, all increased
the risk of dehiscence. There was no association between dehiscence and scar pain, time elapsed since the previous
cesarean section, the method of wound closure or fever.

Abstract

Objective: We wanted to identify risk factors for dehiscence of cesarean section (CS) scars in patients undergoing repeated
cesarean section.
Material and methods: This was a retrospective case-control study over a 3-year period in our medical center (2011–2014),
comparing women who had repeated CS without complications and women diagnosed with dehiscence. Data were collected
from medical records and the groups were compared for demographic and obstetrical data.
Results: Dehiscence was identified in 27 women, while 54 women without dehiscence were the control group. Statistically
significant differences were found in the need for augmentation, the number of previous cesarean sections, cesarean section
in the active phase of labor and length of hospitalization.
Discussion: The need for augmentation of labor, CS in the nonactive stage and more than one cesarean section, all increased
the risk of dehiscence. There was no association between dehiscence and scar pain, time elapsed since the previous
cesarean section, the method of wound closure or fever.

Get Citation

Keywords

cesarean scar dehiscence; augmentation of labor; active phase of labor; scar pain; cesarean section

About this article
Title

Dehiscence of cesarean section scar during pregnancy and delivery — risk factors

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 91, No 9 (2020)

Pages

539-543

Published online

2020-09-30

DOI

10.5603/GP.2020.0086

Pubmed

33030734

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2020;91(9):539-543.

Keywords

cesarean scar dehiscence
augmentation of labor
active phase of labor
scar pain
cesarean section

Authors

Marwan Odeh
Rawan Karwani
Oleg Schnaider
Maya Wolf
Jacob Bornstein

References (21)
  1. Landon MB. Predicting uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34(4): 267–271.
  2. Madaan M, Agrawal S, Nigam A, et al. Trial of labour after previous caesarean section: the predictive factors affecting outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011; 31(3): 224–228.
  3. Olagbuji B, Ezeanochie M, Okonofua F. Predictors of successful vaginal delivery after previous caesarean section in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010; 30(6): 582–585.
  4. Sadeghi H, Rutherford T, Rackow BW, et al. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: case series and review of the literature. Am J Perinatol. 2010; 27(2): 111–120.
  5. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34(1): 90–97.
  6. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 35(1): 75–83.
  7. Hamar BD, Levine D, Katz NL, et al. Expectant management of uterine dehiscence in the second trimester of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102(5 Pt 2): 1139–1142.
  8. Fox NS, Gerber RS, Mourad M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in patients with prior uterine rupture or dehiscence. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(4): 785–789.
  9. Matsunaga JS, Daly CB, Bochner CJ, et al. Repair of uterine dehiscence with continuation of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104(5 Pt 2): 1211–1212.
  10. Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 84(2): 255–258.
  11. Shipp TD, Zelop C, Repke JT, et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181(4): 872–876.
  12. Guiliano M, Closset E, Therby D, et al. Signs, symptoms and complications of complete and partial uterine ruptures during pregnancy and delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 179: 130–134.
  13. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, et al. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187(5): 1199–1202.
  14. Johnson C, Oriol N. The role of epidural anesthesia in trial of labor. Reg Anesth. 1990; 15(6): 304–308.
  15. Cunningham FG. et al.. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. In: Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL. et al. ed. Williams Obstetrics. McGraw-Hill Education, New York 2010: 544–564.
  16. Kolås T, Saugstad OD, Daltveit AK, et al. Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: comparison of newborn infant outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(6): 1538–1543.
  17. Tita ATN, Tita ATN, Lai Y, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU), Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(2): 111–120.
  18. Segal S, Gemer O, Zohav E, et al. Evaluation of breast stimulation for induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean section and in grandmultiparas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995; 74(1): 40–41.
  19. Udayasankar V, Padmagirison R, Majoko F. National survey of obstetricians in Wales regarding induction of labour in women with a previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008; 28(1): 48–50.
  20. Tucker JM, Hauth JC, Hodgkins P, et al. Trial of labor after a one- or two-layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168(2): 545–546.
  21. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186(6): 1326–1330.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl