Original Articles

Comparing Cesarean Scar Defect Incidence After Locked and Unlocked Repair Methods Among Primiparous Patients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Trial

Abstract

Objective: To compare residual myometrial thickness (RMT) and cesarean scar defect (CSD) development after cesarean section using double-layer locked and unlocked closure techniques.
Materials and methods: We conducted a randomized double-blinded trial comparing double-layer locked and unlocked uterine closure techniques following cesarean section in primiparous women. The locked technique involved continuous suturing of the full myometrial thickness in the first layer, followed by back-and-forth needle maneuvering on both sides of the incision for the second layer. The unlocked method included running suturing of two-thirds of the myometrial thickness in the first layer, followed by suturing the upper half of the myometrial thickness in the second layer. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed one year post-cesarean section, with RMT as the primary outcome and scar depth and width as secondary outcomes. Independent t-test and Chi-square test were utilized for statistical analysis.
Results: All 30 patients from the locked and 26 from the unlocked group in the follow-up were diagnosed with CSD (scar depth>2mm). The mean RMT for the unlocked and locked groups were 4.44±1.07mm and 4.12±0.48mm, respectively, showing no significant difference (p =0.14). There was also no significant difference in mean scar width between the locked and unlocked groups (3.68±1.44mm vs. 3.95±1.00mm, p =0.42). However, the mean scar depth was higher in the unlocked group (3.77±1.11 mm vs. 3.16±1.1mm, p =0.04).
Conclusion: We have found no significant differences in the RMT and CSD prevalence between
two-layered locked and unlocked uterine closure techniques, while the scar depth was greater in the unlocked group. Nonetheless, future randomized trials implementing larger sample sizes are required to precisely compare the outcomes of the double-layer locked and unlocked uterine suturing techniques.

 

1. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai NE. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(5):Cd004453.
2. Angolile CM, Max BL, Mushemba J, Mashauri HL. Global increased cesarean section rates and public health implications: A call to action. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6(5):e1274.
3. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010;8:71.
4. Astrid MO, Henrik LJ, Tine DC, Krebs L. Maternal short‐term complications after planned cesarean delivery without medical indication: A registry‐based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(7):905-12.
5. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349-57.
6. Baldini GM, Lot D, Malvasi A, Di Nanni D, Laganà AS, Angelucci C, et al. Isthmocele and Infertility.
J Clin Med. 2024;13(8):2192.
7. O'Neill SM, Agerbo E, Kenny LC, Henriksen TB, Kearney PM, Greene RA, et al. Cesarean section and rate of subsequent stillbirth, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy: a Danish register-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2014;11(7):e1001670.
8. Rupa R, Kushvaha S, Venkatesh K. Uterine Isthmocele-
A Frequently Overlooked Complication of Cesarean Sections. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2021;31(3):601-4.
9. Setubal A, Alves J, Osório F, Guerra A, Fernandes R, Albornoz J, et al. Treatment for Uterine Isthmocele, A Pouchlike Defect at the Site of a Cesarean Section Scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(1):38-46.
10. Tsuji S, Nobuta Y, Hanada T, Takebayashi A, Inatomi A, Takahashi A, et al. Prevalence, definition, and etiology of cesarean scar defect and treatment of cesarean scar disorder: A narrative review. Reprod Med Biol. 2023;22(1):e12532.
11. Kremer TG, Ghiorzi IB, Dibi RP. Isthmocele: an overview of diagnosis and treatment. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2019;65:714-21.
12. Dominguez JA, Pacheco LA, Moratalla E, Carugno JA, Carrera M, Perez-Milan F, et al. Diagnosis and management of isthmocele (Cesarean scar defect): a SWOT analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023;62(3):336-44.
13. Ahamed FM, Solkar S, Stevikova M, Moya BP. Link between cesarean section scar defect and secondary infertility: Case reports and review. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2023;27(1):134-41.
14. Hameed MSS, Wright A, Chern BSM. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Current Understanding and Treatment Including Role of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023;12(2):64-71.
15. Antila-Långsjö RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: a prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(5):458.e1-.e8.
16. Donnez O. Cesarean scar disorder: Management and repair. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;90:102398.
17. Gezer S, Daryal AS, Aksoy L. Effects of endometrial versus non-endometrial suturing on isthmocele development; a randomized controlled trial. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2024;53(5):102758.
18. Mohr-Sasson A, Castel E, Dadon T, Brandt A, Etinger R, Cohen A, et al. Cesarean scar defect risk following endometrial layer closure versus non-closure: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(1):S97-S8.
19. Qayum K, Kar I, Sofi J, Panneerselvam H. Single- Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e18405.
20. Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, Vikhareva O, Markey S, Chaillet N, et al. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):507.e1-.e6.
21. Tekelioğlu M, Karataş S, Güralp O, Murat Alınca C, Ender Yumru A, et al. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after elective second cesarean section.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34(6):943-7.
22. Bayraktar R, Mulayim B, Tamburaci E, Karadag C, Karadag B. Risk of uterine niche following single-layer locked versus unlocked uterine closure: a randomized study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(25):8210-6.
23. Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191-4.
24. Cuschieri S. The CONSORT statement. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S27-s30.
25. Woźniak A, Pyra K, Tinto HR, Woźniak S. Ultrasonographic criteria of cesarean scar defect evaluation. J Ultrason. 2018;18(73):162-5.
26. Vikhareva O, Rickle GS, Lavesson T, Nedopekina E, Brandell K, Slavesen A. Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(4):438-42.
27. Al Sheemy R, Eid S, El-Karef A. Assessment of Cesarean Section Niche Histopathologically after Hysterectomy in Symptomatic Patients. Life Sci. 2014;11:163-71.
28. Genovese F, Schiattarella A, D'Urso G, Vitale SG, Carugno J, Verzi G, et al. Impact of Hysterotomy Closure Technique on Subsequent Cesarean Scar Defects Formation: A Systematic Review. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2023;88(2):81-90.
29. Marchand GJ, Masoud A, King A, Ruther S, Brazil G, Ulibarri H, et al. Effect of single- and double-layer cesarean section closure on residual myometrial thickness and isthmocele - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;18(4):322-32.
30. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(5):578-83.
31. Yasmin S, Sadaf J, Fatima N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat caesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2011;21(9):522-6.
32. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N, 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.
33. Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Dudenhausen JW, Bujak V, Kalache KD, Henrich W. 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. 2017;96(12):1484-9.
Files
IssueVol 18, No 3 (September 2024) QRcode
SectionOriginal Articles
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v18i3.16655
Keywords
Cesarean Section Myometrium Scar Ultrasonography
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Tarafdari A, Nazarpour M, Zargarzadeh N, Hantoushzadeh S, Parsaei M. Comparing Cesarean Scar Defect Incidence After Locked and Unlocked Repair Methods Among Primiparous Patients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Trial. J Family Reprod Health. 2024;18(3):146-153.