32. Single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure technique in niche development among women with full-term primary C-sections: A randomized clinical trial
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to compare niche incidence between single- and double-layer uterine closure techniques and describe related factors among women with full-term primary C-section. From May 2022 to March 2023 at Hanoi Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial was performed on 116 participants (64 in single- and 52 women in double-layer group). The uterine scar was evaluated by transvaginal ultrasound at 12 months postoperatively. The overall niche was 43.1%. There was no difference in niche incidence and residual myometrial thickness between single - and double group (48.4% versus 36.5%; 4.4mm versus 4.6mm, respectively). The healing ratio was better in the latter group (0.60 vs. 0.66, p<0.05). The mean volume of niche was 64mm3. All women were in the mild niche, with a VTS score ≤ 2. The retroverted uterus among women with niche was 56%, higher significantly than women without niche (34.8%). In conclusion, on the hand of well-trained surgeons, there were no difference in niche incidence and RMT between single- and double-layer uterine closure techniques. Retroverted uterus was the main factor contributed to development of niche. Further studies are needed to evaluate the progress of the niche in a longer span and to prevent retroverted uterus.
Article Details
Keywords
Single-layer, double-layer, uterine closure technique, niche, healing ration, VTS score, related factors
References
2. 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. Sep 2021; 13(9): e18405. doi:10.7759/cureus.18405.
3. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Apr 2014; 43(4): 372-82. doi:10.1002/uog.13199.
4. Hanacek J, Vojtech J, Urbankova I, et al. Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. Jan 2020; 99(1): 69-78. doi:10.1111/aogs.13714.
5. Zhou X, Zhang T, Qiao H, Zhang Y, Wang X. Evaluation of uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound in 607 nonpregnant women with a history of cesarean section. BMC Womens Health. May 13 2021; 21(1): 199. doi:10.1186/s12905-021-01337-x.
6. Verberkt C, Stegwee SI, Van der Voet LF, et al. Single-layer vs double-layer uterine closure during cesarean delivery: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2Close study). Am J Obstet Gynecol. Dec 26 2023; doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.12.032.
7. Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Jan 2019; 53(1): 107-115. doi:10.1002/uog.19049.
8. Ludwin A, Martins WP, Ludwin I. Evaluation of uterine niche by three-dimensional sonohysterography and volumetric quantification: techniques and scoring classification system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Jan 2019; 53(1): 139-143. doi:10.1002/uog.19181.
9. Sholapurkar SL. Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate. J Clin Med Res. Mar 2018; 10(3): 166-173. doi:10.14740/jocmr3271w.
10. Backer S, Khanna D, Sadr S, Khatibi A. Intra-operative Guidelines for the Prevention of Uterine Niche Formation in Cesarean Sections: A Review. Cureus. Sep 2023; 15(9): e44521. doi:10.7759/cureus.44521.
11. Stegwee SI, van der Voet LF, Ben AJ, et al. Effect of single- versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial. BJOG. Apr 2021; 128(5): 866-878. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16472.
12. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brolmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Jan 2011; 37(1): 93-9. doi:10.1002/uog.8864.
13. Dominguez JA, Pacheco LA, Moratalla E, et al. Diagnosis and management of isthmocele (Cesarean scar defect): a SWOT analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Sep 2023; 62(3): 336-344. doi:10.1002/uog.26171.
14. Klein Meuleman SJM, Murji A, van den Bosch T, et al. Definition and Criteria for Diagnosing Cesarean Scar Disorder. JAMA Netw Open. Mar 1 2023; 6(3): e235321. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.5321.
15. Park IY, Kim MR, Lee HN, Gen Y, Kim MJ. Risk factors for Korean women to develop an isthmocele after a cesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. May 15 2018; 18(1): 162. doi:10.1186/s12884-018-1821-2.
16. Liu S, Chen L, Zhu G, et al. Analysis of risk factors for cesarean scar diverticulum: A STROBE-compliant case-control study. Medicine (Baltimore). Apr 30 2021; 100(17):e25757. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000025757.
17. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brolmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. Dec 2015; 30(12): 2695-702. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev240.