PREVALENCE OF CAESAREAN SECTION NICHE IN WOMEN WITH PREVIOUS CAESAREAN SECTION AND ITS EFFECT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Authors

  • Gona Aziz Rahim Chwarbakh Health Center, Ministry of Health, Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17656/jsmc.10439

Keywords:

Caesarean section, Caesarean scar niche, Transvaginal ultrasound, Postmenstrual spotting, Dysmenorrhea

Abstract

Background
The Cesarean Section (CS) rate has been increasing in recent practice worldwide as well as in Iraq, and there are many gynecological and obstetric problems related to CS also increasing in parallel to CS, some of them may be related to cesarean scar niche (CSN). There has yet to be a consensus about the gold standard method for diagnosing CSN, its prevalence, and the symptoms it causes.


Objective
This study aims to fi nd the prevalence of CSN in women with previous CS and how common gynaecological symptoms, including abnormal uterine bleeding, are among women who have had cesarean section niches compared to women with no CSN.


Patients and Methods
This is a cross-sectional study conducted in private clinics of gynaecology and ultrasonography in Sulaymaniyah/Kurdistan/Iraq from December 2020 to May 2023. It involved 259 women with a history of previous Cesarean section for whom transvaginal ultrasound was done to fi nd the presence or absence of CSN. Accordingly, they divided into two groups: the first with CSN and the second with no CSN. Both groups followed prospectively for several parameters: postmenstrual spotting, intermenstrual bleeding, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and subfertility—the chi-square test used for statistical analysis of the variables.


Results
This study was carried out on 259 women with a history of one or more CS. Diagnosis of CSN done by 2D TVU: 44% of them had CSN, and 66% had no CSN; the prevalence of CSN was higher in women with repeated CS (P˂0.001). Not all scar niches had symptoms but were frequently symptomatic; in this group, 50.9% were symptomatic, while in those with no CSN, 26.2% were symptomatic (P˂0.001). Postmenstrual spotting and dysmenorrhea were the most predominant symptoms, which were statistically significant compared to the group of no niche (P P˂0.001). At the same time, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and subfertility were not significantly increased. In the group of CSN, 44.73% had large, and 55.26% had small niches. Postmenstrual spotting and dysmenorrhea symptoms were more prevalent in women with large CSN than in small CSN (P˂0.001).


Conclusion
The prevalence of cesarean scar niche was 44% in women with previous CS, which can cause postmenstrual spotting and dysmenorrhea. More studies need to be addressed regarding intermenstrual bleeding, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and subfertility. Therefore, the practice of cesarean section on request is not recommended.

References

Johnston TA. Cesarean section. In: Luesley DM, Kilby MD, Obstetrics & gynaecology, An Evidence-based text for the MRCOG. 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing; UK London, 2016. P. 415–24.

Salah SM, Mohamed ME, Abd El Salam WA, Mohamed AI. Correlation Between Cesarean Section Diagnosed by Hysteroscopy and Postmenstrual Bleeding. EJMCM.2021;8(3):4480-88.

Bandry KW, Abou-Taleb H, Seifeldein GS, Taha MG, Qenawy OK. Prediction of the relationship of cesarean section scar niche and postmenstrual spotting: Is there any relation? EJRNM. Jan 2022;.53(24):1-6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-022-00699-y

Bij De Vaate AMJ, Vander Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersemas S, Brolmann HAM et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. UOG. Apr 2014.43(4):372-82. Doi: 10.1002/uog.13199

Budny-Winska J, Pomorski M. Uterine niche after cesarean section: a review of diagnostic methods. GP.2021.;92(10):726-30. Doi: 10.5603/GPa2021.0195

Van der Voet LF, Limperg T, Veersema S, Timmermans A, Bij de Vaate AMJ, Brolmann HAM et al. Niches after cesarean section in a population seeking hysteroscopic sterilisation. EJOGRB. July 2017; 214:104-8. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.05.004

Abdelfattah EA, Abd-El dayem TM, galal HM, Taylon SS. Gynaecological outcomes of uterine niche after cesarean section: a descriptive study. JRHM. Feb 2021;2(5): doi:10.25259/JRHM-31-2020.

Gozzi P, Hees KA, Berg C, David M, WerneCke KD, Hellmeyer L et al. Frequency and associated symptoms of isthmoceles in women six months after caesarean section: a prospective cohort study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Mar 2023;307(3):841-48.

Abd Elsamie AA, Fawzy RA, El-Baradie SMY, Abd ElFattah LE, Etman Mk. Transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and abnormal uterine bleeding. FUMJ. 2022;10(3):19-24.

Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.2016;23(6):893–902.

Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defect: the agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Jan 2010;35(1):75-83.

Nitayaphan N, Laosooksathit W, Kongsomboon K, Kitporntheranunt M. Prevalence of and factors associated with large cesarean scar defects in women at six weeks postpartum. TJOG. Jul 2023;31(4):1–9.

Tower AM, Frishman GN. Caesarean scar defects: Recognised cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.2013;20(5):562-72.

Hsu I, Hsu L, Dorjee S, Hsu CC. Bacterial colonisation at caesarean section defect in women of secondary infertility: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy and Children. Feb 2022;22(1):135. https//doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04471-y

Karli P, Sahin B, Kara F. The incidence of isthmocele may be higher than reported.JSM. Sep 2018;2(3):283-87 https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.424328.

Antila-langsjo RM, Maenpaa JU, Huhtala HS, tomas EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol.2018;219(5):458e1-458e8

Vervoort AJMW, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp JK, Brolmann HAM, Mol BWJ, Huirne JAF. Why does a niche develop in cesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(12):26952702

Wang CB, Chiu WWC, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms, and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):85-9.

Gowan SM, Goumalatsou C, Kent A. Fantastic niches and where to find them: the current diagnosis and management of uterine niche. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2022;14(10):37-47.

Mohr-Sasson A, dadon T, brandt A, Shats M, Axcelrod M, Meyer R et al. The association between uterine scar defect (niche) and the presence of symptoms. RBMO. Apr 2023; S1472-6483(23) 00263-8.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.012.

Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Lambalk CB, Huirne JA. Post-Caesarean section niche-related impaired fertility: hypothetical mechanisms. Hum reprod. 2020;35(7):1484-94.

Baldini GM, Malvasi A, Hatirnaz S, Kosmas I, Tinelli A, Baldini D. In patients with isthmocele undergoing IVF, the risk of ectopic pregnancy on the cesarean scar is only reduced if the ultrasound-guided transfer is performed on day 5- A retrospective case-control study. Eu Re Med Pharmacol Science. Aug 2022;26(15):5520–28.

Published

2023-12-21

How to Cite

1.
Rahim G. PREVALENCE OF CAESAREAN SECTION NICHE IN WOMEN WITH PREVIOUS CAESAREAN SECTION AND ITS EFFECT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. JSMC [Internet]. 2023 Dec. 21 [cited 2024 Jun. 13];13(4):12. Available from: https://jsmc.univsul.edu.iq/index.php/jsmc/article/view/jsmc-10439

Similar Articles

1-10 of 50

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.