Ultrasound elastography of the lower uterine segment in women with a previous cesarean section: Comparison of in-/ex-vivo elastography versus tensile-stress-strain-rupture analysis

Predicting Uterine Rupture Risk Using Lower Uterine Segment Measurement During Pregnancy With Cesarean History: How Reliable Is It? A Review

Importance

Uterine rupture during labor is a calamitous event that can result in maternal/neonatal morbidity/mortality. Lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness measurement is a proposed method to determine the risk factor of uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean. Does this measurement predict uterine rupture risk?

Objectives

This review examines current evidence to determine if a thin LUS ultrasound diagnosis during pregnancy with prior cesarean delivery(s) can reliably predict uterine rupture risk while attempting vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).

Evidence Acquisition

Electronic databases (PubMed and CINAHL) were searched with one limitation of abstracts in English. Search terms used were "lower uterine segment" AND "risk(s)" AND "rupture" OR "dehiscence.

Results

After reviewing 164 identified articles, 15 were used in this review. Of the studies including LUS thickness measurement, notable differences were found: gestational age at time of measurement, full thickness measurement versus myometrial thickness, number of sonographers involved, ultrasound technique (transabdominal vs transvaginal), and blinding. Other factors influencing LUS thickness include fetal weight, amniotic fluid volume, and gestational age. The most recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that an LUS > 3.65 mm should be safe for a VBAC, 2-3.65 mm is probably safe, and <2 mm identifies a patient at higher risk for uterine rupture/dehiscence.

Conclusions

Study heterogeneity, absence of an agreed upon thickness threshold, poor correlation between ultrasound and MRI measurements, or physical cesarean measurements currently make VBAC uterine rupture risk prediction uncertain.

Relevance

Our aim is to analyze existing literature to determine if evidence supports LUS measurement in women undergoing VBAC after cesarean to determine risk of uterine rupture.

Intraoperative ultrasound during repeat cesarean delivery facilitates sampling of uterine scar tissue

OBJECTIVES

Histological examination of uterine scars provides insight into uterine wound healing and helps to develop prevention methods of uterine wall rupture after previous uterine surgery. Therefore, exact intraoperative scar identification is needed for specimen collection from the actual scar tissue. The aim of this study was to correlate pre- and intraoperative ultrasound measurements of the lower uterine segment (LUS) with histological findings of scar tissue and to evaluate the relevance of intraoperative ultrasound.

METHODS

In a prospective observational study, preoperative and intraoperative sonographic measurements of the LUS thickness were performed in 33 women with a history of at least one cesarean delivery. Intraoperative ultrasound with a linear transducer placed directly on the uterus identified the scar area and uterotomy was performed 2 cm cranially. Tissue samples were taken after extraction of the fetus, embedded in paraffin wax, and stained according to Gomori Trichrome to identify scar tissue. Collagen content was evaluated with imaging software Fiji (NIH, Bethesda, USA). Preoperative and intraoperative sonographic measurements were correlated with histologic evidence of scar tissue.

RESULTS

Histological evidence of scar tissue was found in 11 out of 33 samples with significantly lower ultrasonographic thickness of the lower uterine segment compared to the other 22 samples, both antepartum (1.4 mm [1.3-1.9] vs. 2.0 mm [1.6-2.6], p=0.03) and intrapartum (1.6 mm [1.3-1.9] vs. 3.7 mm [2.0-4.7], p<0.01). Intraoperative ultrasound had a significantly higher predictive power (AUC difference 0.18 [0.03-0.33], p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative sonography identifies the uterine wall area with histologically confirmable scar tissue far better than preoperative sonography.

Exploring the Effects of Standardized Soft Tissue Mobilization on the Viscoelastic Properties, Pressure Pain Thresholds, and Tactile Pressure Thresholds of the Cesarean Section Scar

Background:

Objectives of soft tissue mobilization applied to cesarean section (C-section) scars are to decrease stiffness and to reduce pain. Research investigating these effects is lacking.

Materials and methods:

The authors conducted a descriptive, exploratory, proof-of-concept clinical study. Women aged 18 to 40 years who had undergone at least one C-section were recruited. A trained osteopath performed standardized mobilization of the C-section scar once a week for 2 weeks. Scar quality and pain characteristics, viscoelastic properties, pressure pain thresholds, and tactile pressure thresholds were measured before and after each session. Paired Student's t-tests and Friedman's test with Dunn–Bonferroni adjustment were performed to assess the immediate and short-term effects of mobilizations. Kendall's W and Cohen's d were calculated to determine effect sizes over the short term. Simple bootstrapped bias-corrected and accelerated 95% median confidence intervals were computed.

Results:

Thirty-two participants completed the study. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale questionnaire revealed differences with small and moderate effects for stiffness (p = 0.021, d = 0.43), relief (p < 0.001, d = 0.28), surface area (p = 0.040, d = 0.36), flexibility (p = 0.007, d = 0.52), and participant opinion (p = 0.001, d = 0.62). Mobilizations increased elasticity (p < 0.001, W = 0.11), decreased stiffness (p < 0.001, W = 0.30), and improved pressure pain thresholds (p < 0.001, W = 0.10) of the C-section, with small to moderate effects. The results also showed decreased tone and mechanical stress relaxation time, as well as increased tactile pressure thresholds at the different measurement times (p < 0.05), but trivial effect sizes (W < 0.10). Creep showed trivial effect and no significant difference (p = 0.09).

Conclusion:

This study showed that two sessions of mobilization of C-section scar might have a beneficial effect on some viscoelastic properties of the C-section as well as on pain. Some variables of interest useful for future empirical studies are highlighted.

ClinicalTrial. Gov NCT04320355.

Evaluation of the uterine scar stiffness in women with previous Cesarean section by ultrasound elastography: A cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate by means of elastography if the quantitative assessment of the cesarean scar elasticity is feasible using as reference the surrounding intact myometrium and to investigate if the cesarean scar stiffness is influenced by the clinical characteristics of the previous cesarean delivery.

METHODS

Prospective study including women with a previous Cesarean Section (CS) ≥ 37 weeks' gestation performed 12-15 months before. By transvaginal ultrasound two regions of interest (ROI) were selected: uterine scar (Region 1) and surrounding myometrium (Region 2). Strain index (SI) for each ROI was calculated and the Strain Ratio (SR) was defined as Region 1 SI/Region 2 SI. The primary outcome was to compare SR among women who were grouped in accordance to presence of previous vaginal delivery, CS during labor, type of suture or pyrexia during post-partum. The secondary outcome of this study was to evaluate the correlation between SR and maternal, neonatal and labor characteristics.

RESULTS

68 women were included. The mean SR was 1.8 ± 0.7 thus indicating an increased stiffness of the uterine scar compared to the surrounding myometrium. No significant differences were found in terms of SR according to presence of previous VD, CS during labor, type of suture or pyrexia during post-partum period. Strain Ratio was not correlated to maternal characteristics nor to labor and neonatal outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of uterine scar stiffness is feasible by using elastography. The stiffness of the uterine scar is higher than that of the surrounding myometrium and is not correlated to maternal and labor characteristics.