Cicatrix Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2013;35(5):233-237
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032013000500008
Implantation of a pregnancy within a cesarean delivery scar is considered to be the rarest form of ectopic pregnancy, with a high morbidity and mortality. Pregnancy in a cesarean delivery scar may cause catastrophic complications which may result in hysterectomy and compromise the reproductive future of a woman. We report an ectopic pregnancy in cesarean scar case in a 28-year old pregnant woman that was treated with success with the association between three treatment modalities (methotrexate, uterine artery embolization and curettage) and preserve her fertility.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2013;35(5):233-237
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032013000500008
Implantation of a pregnancy within a cesarean delivery scar is considered to be the rarest form of ectopic pregnancy, with a high morbidity and mortality. Pregnancy in a cesarean delivery scar may cause catastrophic complications which may result in hysterectomy and compromise the reproductive future of a woman. We report an ectopic pregnancy in cesarean scar case in a 28-year old pregnant woman that was treated with success with the association between three treatment modalities (methotrexate, uterine artery embolization and curettage) and preserve her fertility.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2012;34(5):221-227
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032012000500006
PURPOSE: To evaluate the thickness of the lower uterine segment by transvaginal ultrasound in a group of non-pregnant women and to describe the morphologic findings in the scar of those submitted to cesarean section. METHODS: A retrospective study of 155 transvaginal ultrasound images obtained from premenopausal and non-pregnant women, conducted between January 2008 and November 2011. the subjects were divided into three groups: women who were never pregnant (Control Group I), women with previous vaginal deliveries (Control Group II) and women with previous cesarean section (Observation Group). We excluded women with a retroverted uterus, intrauterine device users, pregnant women and those with less than one year of tsince the last obstetrical event. The data were analyzed statistically with Statistica®, version 8.0 software. ANOVA and LSD were used to compare the groups regarding quantitative variables and the Student's t-test was used to compare the thickness of the anterior and posterior isthmus. The Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between quantitative variables. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was significant difference between the thickness of the anterior and posterior isthmus only in the group of women with previous cesarean section. Comparing the groups two by two, no significant differences between the thickness of the anterior and posterior isthmus were observed in the Control Groups, but this difference was significant when we compared the Observation Group with each Control Group. In the Observation Group, no correlation was found between the thickness of the isthmus and the number of previous cesarean deliveries or the time elapsed since the last birth. A niche was found in the cesarean scar in 30.6% of the women in the Observation Group, 93% of whom complained of post-menstrual bleeding. CONCLUSION: The relationship between the thickness of the anterior and posterior wall of the lower uterine segment by transvaginal ultrasound is a suitable method for the evaluation of the uterine lower segment in women with previous cesarean sections.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2012;34(5):221-227
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032012000500006
PURPOSE: To evaluate the thickness of the lower uterine segment by transvaginal ultrasound in a group of non-pregnant women and to describe the morphologic findings in the scar of those submitted to cesarean section. METHODS: A retrospective study of 155 transvaginal ultrasound images obtained from premenopausal and non-pregnant women, conducted between January 2008 and November 2011. the subjects were divided into three groups: women who were never pregnant (Control Group I), women with previous vaginal deliveries (Control Group II) and women with previous cesarean section (Observation Group). We excluded women with a retroverted uterus, intrauterine device users, pregnant women and those with less than one year of tsince the last obstetrical event. The data were analyzed statistically with Statistica®, version 8.0 software. ANOVA and LSD were used to compare the groups regarding quantitative variables and the Student's t-test was used to compare the thickness of the anterior and posterior isthmus. The Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between quantitative variables. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was significant difference between the thickness of the anterior and posterior isthmus only in the group of women with previous cesarean section. Comparing the groups two by two, no significant differences between the thickness of the anterior and posterior isthmus were observed in the Control Groups, but this difference was significant when we compared the Observation Group with each Control Group. In the Observation Group, no correlation was found between the thickness of the isthmus and the number of previous cesarean deliveries or the time elapsed since the last birth. A niche was found in the cesarean scar in 30.6% of the women in the Observation Group, 93% of whom complained of post-menstrual bleeding. CONCLUSION: The relationship between the thickness of the anterior and posterior wall of the lower uterine segment by transvaginal ultrasound is a suitable method for the evaluation of the uterine lower segment in women with previous cesarean sections.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2007;29(8):423-427
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032007000800007
PURPOSE: to identify the incidence and associated factors of surgical scar endometriosis. METHODS: a retrospective cohort observational study performed from the medical records of female patients attended at the Clinical Hospital of Univesidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) with histopathological diagnosis of scar endometriosis from May 1978 to December 2003. RESULTS: a total of 72 patients were included in the study. The incidence of scar endometriosis after cesarean section was significantly higher than after episiotomy (0.2% and 0.06%, respectively; p<0.00001) with relative risk of 3.3. The women’s age, when diagnosed, ranged from 16 to 48 years old, (mean=30.8 years old). The scar location varied according to the previous surgery: 46 scars after cesarean sections, one after hysterectomy and one after abdominal surgery (48 lesions in the abdominal wall); 19 scars after episiotomy, one because of relapse and two after pelvic floor surgeries (22 pelvic wounds); two women had not been submitted to previous gynecological surgery (one umbilical endometrioma and one lesion in the posterior vaginal wall). Pain was the most frequent symptom (80%), followed by a node (79%) and, in more than 40%, the pain and the node suffered modification with menstruation. Other less frequent complaints were: dyspareunia, secondary infertility, pelvic pain, dysmenorrhoea, scar secretion, menorrhagia pain when evacuating. The mean time observed between the surgery and the beginning of the symptoms was of 3.7 years. The average size of the endometriomas was 3.07 cm. The diagnosis based on clinic evaluation was correct in 71% of the cases. The choice of treatment in all the cases was the surgical excision. In only one incident there was relapse and new intervention. CONCLUSIONS: scar endometriosis is a rare situation originated, in most cases, after obstetrical surgical procedure, with higher risk after cesarean section. It is a highly suggestive clinical condition, with a rare necessity of complementary diagnostic procedures, and the best treatment choice is the surgical excision.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2007;29(8):423-427
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032007000800007
PURPOSE: to identify the incidence and associated factors of surgical scar endometriosis. METHODS: a retrospective cohort observational study performed from the medical records of female patients attended at the Clinical Hospital of Univesidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) with histopathological diagnosis of scar endometriosis from May 1978 to December 2003. RESULTS: a total of 72 patients were included in the study. The incidence of scar endometriosis after cesarean section was significantly higher than after episiotomy (0.2% and 0.06%, respectively; p<0.00001) with relative risk of 3.3. The women’s age, when diagnosed, ranged from 16 to 48 years old, (mean=30.8 years old). The scar location varied according to the previous surgery: 46 scars after cesarean sections, one after hysterectomy and one after abdominal surgery (48 lesions in the abdominal wall); 19 scars after episiotomy, one because of relapse and two after pelvic floor surgeries (22 pelvic wounds); two women had not been submitted to previous gynecological surgery (one umbilical endometrioma and one lesion in the posterior vaginal wall). Pain was the most frequent symptom (80%), followed by a node (79%) and, in more than 40%, the pain and the node suffered modification with menstruation. Other less frequent complaints were: dyspareunia, secondary infertility, pelvic pain, dysmenorrhoea, scar secretion, menorrhagia pain when evacuating. The mean time observed between the surgery and the beginning of the symptoms was of 3.7 years. The average size of the endometriomas was 3.07 cm. The diagnosis based on clinic evaluation was correct in 71% of the cases. The choice of treatment in all the cases was the surgical excision. In only one incident there was relapse and new intervention. CONCLUSIONS: scar endometriosis is a rare situation originated, in most cases, after obstetrical surgical procedure, with higher risk after cesarean section. It is a highly suggestive clinical condition, with a rare necessity of complementary diagnostic procedures, and the best treatment choice is the surgical excision.