Can third-trimester assessment of uterine scar in women with prior Cesarean section predict uterine rupture?

Mechanical Effects of a Maylard Scar During a Vaginal Birth After a Previous Caesarean

Caesarean section is one of the most common surgeries worldwide, even though there is no evidence supporting maternal and perinatal long-term benefits. Furthermore, the mechanical behavior of a caesarean scar during a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is not well understood since there are several questions regarding the uterine wound healing process. The aim of this study is to investigate the biomechanical Maylard fiber reorientation and stiffness influence during a VBAC through computational methods. A biomechanical model comprising a fetus and a uterus was developed, and a chemical-mechanical constitutive model that triggers uterine contractions was used, where some of the parameters were adjusted to account for the matrix and fiber stiffness increase in the caesarean scar. Several mechanical simulations were performed to analyze different scar fibers arrangements, considering different values for the respective matrix and fibers stiffness. The results revealed that a random fiber arrangement in the Maylard scar has a much higher impact on its mechanical behavior during a VBAC than the common fibers arrangement present in the uninjured uterine tissue. An increase of the matrix scar stiffness exhibits a lower impact, while an increase of the fiber's stiffness has no significant influence.

Technique of sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment in women with previous cesarean delivery: a prospective, pre/intraoperative comparative ultrasound study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was: (A) to establish the effects of different ultrasound measurement methods (linear versus curved array) and measuring conditions [impact of pressure by fetal head/pelvis on the lower uterine segment (LUS)] during LUS-muscular-thickness measurement, (B) to introduce the intraoperative ultrasound measurement of LUS-muscular thickness (reference measurement method), and (C) to evaluate the correlation between different combinations of LUS-muscular-thickness measurement ultrasound techniques at birth planning and preoperative versus intraoperative measurements.

METHODS

A prospective clinical observational study of women with the previous cesarean delivery was conducted. LUS-muscular thickness was measured: first at birth planning and second preoperatively using linear and curved probes (transabdominal) and an endocavitar probe (transvaginal), examined with and without pressure by fetal head/pelvis on LUS during measurement and third intraoperatively during repeat cesarean. Bland-Altman plots, paired t tests, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and scatter plots were used.

RESULTS

Thirty-three women were included in the study (ultrasound measurements: n = 601). There was no systematic difference between LUS-muscular-thickness measurements with linear versus curved array (mean difference = 0.06 mm; p = 0.24; n_m = 133) but between measurements with pressure by the fetus versus without (mean difference = - 0.37 mm; p < 0.001; n_m = 243). The highest correlation coefficients were detected for the preoperative (at the day of cesarean section), transabdominal-vaginal approach combined ultrasound measurements versus the intraoperative ultrasound measurements of LUS-muscular thickness-as long as the measurements were made without pressure from the fetal head/pelvis on the LUS [0.86, p < 0.001, n = 24, 95% CI (0.70, 0.94)].

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic application of predetermined measuring conditions, standardized setup criteria improves the performance of LUS thickness measurement by ultrasound near term. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02827604.