Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 15/12/2025
Abstract Views: 0
Views pdf: 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v556i3.16502
Issue
Vol. 556 No. 3 (2025)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Phạm, T. M. A., Bùi, T. T. T., & Phan, H. A. (2025). FACTORS RELATED TO CESAREAN SCAR DEFECTS IN FIRST-TIME CESAREAN SECTION PATIENTS. Vietnam Medical Journal, 556(3). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v556i3.16502

FACTORS RELATED TO CESAREAN SCAR DEFECTS IN FIRST-TIME CESAREAN SECTION PATIENTS

Thị Mai Anh Phạm, Thị Thu Thảo Bùi, Hoàng Anh Phan

Main Article Content

Abstract

A prospective descriptive study was conducted on 237 women who underwent their first cesarean section at Hai Phong Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital between April 2023 and February 2025. The aim of the study was to review factors associated with cesarean section scar defects. The study found that 64 cases (27%) had cesarean scar defects, all of which were classified as small (remaining uterine muscle thickness >3 mm). Factors significantly associated with an increased risk of scar defects included: Cesarean section during labor, especially in phase 1B (OR 2.62, 95% CI: 1.28–5.37), single-layer uterine myometrial suture (OR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.06–3.56), continuous suture (OR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.16–4.27), retroverted uterus (OR 2.76, 95% CI: 1.50–5.10) and anemia (OR 2.84, 95% CI: 1.22–6.61). No significant associations were found with BMI, body weight, gestational age at the time of surgery, hypertension/preeclampsia, or diabetes. Conclusion: Using a two-layer uterine closure technique, with the first layer sutured using interrupted suture, was associated with a reduced risk of scar defect.

Article Details

Keywords

Cesarean scar defect, uterine muscle suture technique

References

Bij de Vaate A.J.M., Brölmann H. a. M., van der Voet L.F., et al. (2011). Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 37(1), 93–99.
2. Naji O., Abdallah Y., Bij De Vaate A.J., et al. (2012). Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 39(3), 252–259.
3. Osser O.V., Jokubkiene L., and Valentin L. (2010). Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 35(1), 75–83.
4. Jordans I.P.M., de Leeuw R.A., Stegwee S.I., et al. (2019). Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,53(1),107–115.
5. Zimmer E.Z., Bardin R., Tamir A., et al. (2004). Sonographic imaging of cervical scars after Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 23(6), 594–598.
6. Aj V., Lb U., Wj H., et al. (2015). Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl, 30(12).
7. Hanacek J., Vojtech J., Urbankova I., et al. (2020). Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 99(1), 69–78.
8. CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos E., Addo V., et al. (2013). Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl, 382(9888), 234–248.
9. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR)* 2010 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - Wiley Online Library. , accessed: 11/09/2022.
10. Bamberg C., Hinkson L., Dudenhausen J.W., et al. (2017). Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after single- or double-layer uterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 96(12), 1484–1489.