Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Дефект рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика и лечение вне беременности
Дефект рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика и лечение вне беременности
Мартынов С.А. Дефект рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика и лечение вне беременности. Гинекология. 2020; 22 (3): 6–10.
DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2020.3.200189
DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2020.3.200189
________________________________________________
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения. Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.
Аннотация
Целью обзора явилось обобщение информации относительно клинических проявлений, особенностей диагностики, а также способов коррекции дефектов рубца после кесарева сечения (КС) вне беременности. «Дефект рубца после КС», «ниша», «истмоцеле» представляют собой дефект миометрия в зоне рубца после КС, который чаще всего выявляется с помощью ультразвукового исследования, соногистерографии или магнитно-резонансной томографии и проявляется постменструальными кровяными выделениями из половых путей. В ряде случаев может быть причиной меноррагий, диспареунии, тазовых болей, бесплодия, разрыва матки во время последующей беременности и родов. Консервативная терапия или хирургическое лечение лапароскопическим, лапаротомным или вагинальным доступом проводится в зависимости от симптоматики, размеров дефекта, толщины остаточного миометрия, а также репродуктивных планов женщины.
Ключевые слова: рубец на матке, ниша, истмоцеле
Key words: cesarean scar defect, niche, isthmocele.
Ключевые слова: рубец на матке, ниша, истмоцеле
________________________________________________
Key words: cesarean scar defect, niche, isthmocele.
Полный текст
Список литературы
1. Robson SJ, de Costa CM. Thirty years of the World Health Organization`s target caesarean section rate: time to move on. Med J Aust 2017; 206: 181–5.
2. Setubal A, Alves J, Osorio F et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouch-like defect at the site of cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022
3. Краснопольский В.И., Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Логутова Л.С. Несостоятельность шва (рубца) на матке после КС: проблемы и решения (редакционная статья). Рос. вестн. акушера-гинеколога. 2015; 3: 4–8.
[Krasnopol'skii V.I., Buianova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Logutova L.S. Nesostoiatel'nost' shva (rubtsa) na matke posle KS: problemy i resheniia (redaktsionnaia stat'ia). Ros. vestn. akushera-ginekologa. 2015; 3: 4–8 (in Russian).]
4. Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the ‘niche’ in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1105–15.
5. Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of Cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 893–902.
6. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 90–7.
7. Karli P, Sahin B, Kara F. The incidence of isthmocele may be higher than reported. J Surg Med 2018; 2 (3): 283–7.
8. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ et al. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 2695–702.
9. Schepker N, Garcia-Rocha GJ, Versen-Hoynck F et al. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0
10. Аракелян А.С., Мартынов С.А., Хорошун Н.Д. и др. Диагностика и хирургическая коррекция несостоятельности рубца на матке после КС с использованием лапароскопии и гистероскопии. В кн.: Сухих Г.Т., Адамян Л.В. (ред.). Материалы XXIX конгресса «Новые технологии в диагностике и лечении гинекологических заболеваний», Москва, 7–10 июня 2016 г. М., 2016; с. 179–80.
[Arakelian A.S., Martynov S.A., Khoroshun N.D. et al. Diagnostika i khirurgicheskaia korrektsiia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle KS s ispol'zovaniem laparoskopii i gisteroskopii. V kn.: Sukhikh G.T., Adamian L.V. (red.). Materialy XXIX kongressa "Novye tekhnologii v diagnostike i lechenii ginekologicheskikh zabolevanii', Moscow, 7–10 iiunia 2016 g. Moscow, 2016; p. 179–80 (in Russian).]
11. Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 289–96.
12. Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S et al. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 2014; 121: 145–56.
13. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2011; 18: 234–7.
14. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 75–83.
15. Osser OV, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of Cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in non-pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525–32.
16. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 289–92.
17. Tang X, Wang J, Du Y et al. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 242: 1–6.
18. Satpathy G, Kumar I, Matah M, Verma A. Comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance morphometry and sonography in assessment of post-cesarean uterine scar. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28: 169–74.
19. Wong W, Fung WT. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2008; 7: 104–7.
20. Waniorek A. Hysterography after cesarean section. With special reference to the effect of subsequent delivery on the hysterographic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 94 (1): 42–9.
21. Tahara M, Shimizu T, Shimoura H. Preliminary report of treatment with oral contraceptive pills for intermenstrual vaginal bleeding secondary to a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 477–9.
22. Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q et al. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;
134: 336–9.
23. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 1999; 18: 13–6.
24. Ying-Yi Chen, Ching-Chang Tsai, Kuo-Chung Lan et al. Preliminary report on the use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system for the treatment of intermenstrual bleeding due to previous cesarean delivery scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45 (10): 2015–20.
https://doi.10.1111/jog.14060
25. Vervoort AJMW, Van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp WJK et al. Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2018; 125: 326–34.
26. Tanimura S, Funamoto H, Hosono T et al. New diagnostic criteria and operative strategy for cesarean scar syndrome: endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by cesarean scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41: 1363–9.
27. Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 297–301.
28. Vervoort AJMW, Vissers J, Hehenkamp WJK et al. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2018; 125: 317–25.
29. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E et al. Deficient lower segment cesarean section scars: Prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 72–7.
30. Краснопольская К.В., Попов А.А., Чечнева М.А. и др. Прегравидарная метропластика по поводу несостоятельного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: влияние на естественную фертильность и результаты ЭКО. Проблемы репродукции. 2015; 3: 56–62. DOI: 10.17116/repro201521356-62
[Krasnopol'skaia K.V., Popov A.A., Chechneva M.A. et al. Pregravidarnaia metroplastika po povodu nesostoiatel'nogo rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniia: vliianie na estestvennuiu fertil'nost' i rezul'taty EKO. Problemy reproduktsii. 2015; 3: 56–62. DOI: 10.17116/repro201521356-62 (in Russian).]
31. Пучкова Н.В. Несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика, тактика ведения, репродуктивный прогноз. Автореф. дис. ... канд. мед. наук. М., 2014.
[Puchkova N.V. Nesostoiatel'nyi rubets na matke posle kesareva secheniia: diagnostika, taktika vedeniia, reproduktivnyi prognoz. Avtoref. dis. ... kand. med. nauk. Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).]
32. Seliger G, Chaoui K, Lautenschlager C et al. Technique of sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment in women with previous cesarean delivery: a prospective, pre/intraoperative comparative ultrasound study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 298: 297–306.
33. Zhao W, Liu G, Yang Q, Zhang Ch. A new method using a Foley Catheter to locate the diverticulum in laparoscopic repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 223: 14–7.
34. Макиян З.Н., Адамян Л.В., Карабач В.В., Чупрынин В.Д. Новый метод хирургического лечения несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения с помощью внутриматочного манипулятора с желобом. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 2: 104–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110
[Makiian Z.N., Adamian L.V., Karabach V.V., Chuprynin V.D. Novyi metod khirurgicheskogo lecheniia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle
kesareva secheniia s pomoshch'iu vnutrimatochnogo manipuliatora s
zhelobom. Akusherstvo i ginekologiia. 2020; 2: 104–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110 (in Russian).]
35. Perry CP, Presthus J, Nieves A. Laparoscopic uterine suspension for pain relief: a multicenter study. J Reprod Med 2005; 50: 657–70.
36. Sipahi S, Sasaki K, Miller Ch. The minimally invasive approach to the symptomatic Isthmocele – what does the literature say? A step-by-step primer on laparoscopic isthmocele – excision and repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29: 257–65. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000380
37. Zhang Y. A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous Cesarean scar defect.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 535–41.
38. Ciebiera M, Ciebiera M, Czekanska-Rawska M, Jakiel G. Laparoscopic isthmocele treatment – single center experience. Videosurgery Miniinv 2017; 12: 88–95.
39. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. Sonographic evaluation of surgical repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45 (8): 455–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22449
40. Zhou J, Yao M, Wang H et al. Vaginal repair of Cesarean section scar diverticula that resulted in improved postoperative menstruation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 969–78.
41. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2012; 19: 454–8.
42. Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31–4.
43. Van der Voet LF, Jordans IP, Brolmann HA et al. Changes in the uterine scar during the first year after a caesarean section: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017. https://doi.10.1159/000478046
44. Demers S, Roberge S, Bujold E. Laparoscopic repair of postcesarean uterine scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20: 537.
45. Grace L, Nezhat A. Should Cesarean Scar Defect Be Treated Laparoscopically? A Case Report an Review of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (5): 843. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.030
2. Setubal A, Alves J, Osorio F et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouch-like defect at the site of cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022
3. Krasnopol'skii V.I., Buianova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Logutova L.S. Nesostoiatel'nost' shva (rubtsa) na matke posle KS: problemy i resheniia (redaktsionnaia stat'ia). Ros. vestn. akushera-ginekologa. 2015; 3: 4–8 (in Russian).
4. Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the ‘niche’ in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1105–15.
5. Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of Cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 893–902.
6. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 90–7.
7. Karli P, Sahin B, Kara F. The incidence of isthmocele may be higher than reported. J Surg Med 2018; 2 (3): 283–7.
8. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ et al. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 2695–702.
9. Schepker N, Garcia-Rocha GJ, Versen-Hoynck F et al. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0
10. Arakelian A.S., Martynov S.A., Khoroshun N.D. et al. Diagnostika i khirurgicheskaia korrektsiia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle KS s ispol'zovaniem laparoskopii i gisteroskopii. V kn.: Sukhikh G.T., Adamian L.V. (red.). Materialy XXIX kongressa "Novye tekhnologii v diagnostike i lechenii ginekologicheskikh zabolevanii', Moscow, 7–10 iiunia 2016 g. Moscow, 2016; p. 179–80 (in Russian).
11. Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 289–96.
12. Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S et al. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 2014; 121: 145–56.
13. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2011; 18: 234–7.
14. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 75–83.
15. Osser OV, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of Cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in non-pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525–32.
16. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 289–92.
17. Tang X, Wang J, Du Y et al. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 242: 1–6.
18. Satpathy G, Kumar I, Matah M, Verma A. Comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance morphometry and sonography in assessment of post-cesarean uterine scar. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28: 169–74.
19. Wong W, Fung WT. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2008; 7: 104–7.
20. Waniorek A. Hysterography after cesarean section. With special reference to the effect of subsequent delivery on the hysterographic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 94 (1): 42–9.
21. Tahara M, Shimizu T, Shimoura H. Preliminary report of treatment with oral contraceptive pills for intermenstrual vaginal bleeding secondary to a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 477–9.
22. Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q et al. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;
134: 336–9.
23. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 1999; 18: 13–6.
24. Ying-Yi Chen, Ching-Chang Tsai, Kuo-Chung Lan et al. Preliminary report on the use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system for the treatment of intermenstrual bleeding due to previous cesarean delivery scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45 (10): 2015–20. https://doi.10.1111/jog.14060
25. Vervoort AJMW, Van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp WJK et al. Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2018; 125: 326–34.
26. Tanimura S, Funamoto H, Hosono T et al. New diagnostic criteria and operative strategy for cesarean scar syndrome: endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by cesarean scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41: 1363–9.
27. Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 297–301.
28. Vervoort AJMW, Vissers J, Hehenkamp WJK et al. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2018; 125: 317–25.
29. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E et al. Deficient lower segment cesarean section scars: Prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 72–7.
30. Krasnopol'skaia K.V., Popov A.A., Chechneva M.A. et al. Pregravidarnaia metroplastika po povodu nesostoiatel'nogo rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniia: vliianie na estestvennuiu fertil'nost' i rezul'taty EKO. Problemy reproduktsii. 2015; 3: 56–62. DOI: 10.17116/repro201521356-62 (in Russian).
31. Puchkova N.V. Nesostoiatel'nyi rubets na matke posle kesareva secheniia: diagnostika, taktika vedeniia, reproduktivnyi prognoz. Avtoref. dis. ... kand. med. nauk. Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).
32. Seliger G, Chaoui K, Lautenschlager C et al. Technique of sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment in women with previous cesarean delivery: a prospective, pre/intraoperative comparative ultrasound study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 298: 297–306.
33. Zhao W, Liu G, Yang Q, Zhang Ch. A new method using a Foley Catheter to locate the diverticulum in laparoscopic repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 223: 14–7.
34. Makiian Z.N., Adamian L.V., Karabach V.V., Chuprynin V.D. Novyi metod khirurgicheskogo lecheniia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniia s pomoshch'iu vnutrimatochnogo manipuliatora s zhelobom. Akusherstvo i ginekologiia. 2020; 2: 104–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110 (in Russian).
35. Perry CP, Presthus J, Nieves A. Laparoscopic uterine suspension for pain relief: a multicenter study. J Reprod Med 2005; 50: 657–70.
36. Sipahi S, Sasaki K, Miller Ch. The minimally invasive approach to the symptomatic Isthmocele – what does the literature say? A step-by-step primer on laparoscopic isthmocele – excision and repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29: 257–65.
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000380
37. Zhang Y. A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous Cesarean scar defect.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 535–41.
38. Ciebiera M, Ciebiera M, Czekanska-Rawska M, Jakiel G. Laparoscopic isthmocele treatment – single center experience. Videosurgery Miniinv 2017; 12: 88–95.
39. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. Sonographic evaluation of surgical repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45 (8): 455–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22449
40. Zhou J, Yao M, Wang H et al. Vaginal repair of Cesarean section scar diverticula that resulted in improved postoperative menstruation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 969–78.
41. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2012; 19: 454–8.
42. Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31–4.
43. Van der Voet LF, Jordans IP, Brolmann HA et al. Changes in the uterine scar during the first year after a caesarean section: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017. https://doi.10.1159/000478046
44. Demers S, Roberge S, Bujold E. Laparoscopic repair of postcesarean uterine scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20: 537.
45. Grace L, Nezhat A. Should Cesarean Scar Defect Be Treated Laparoscopically? A Case Report an Review of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (5): 843. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.030
2. Setubal A, Alves J, Osorio F et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouch-like defect at the site of cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022
3. Краснопольский В.И., Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Логутова Л.С. Несостоятельность шва (рубца) на матке после КС: проблемы и решения (редакционная статья). Рос. вестн. акушера-гинеколога. 2015; 3: 4–8.
[Krasnopol'skii V.I., Buianova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Logutova L.S. Nesostoiatel'nost' shva (rubtsa) na matke posle KS: problemy i resheniia (redaktsionnaia stat'ia). Ros. vestn. akushera-ginekologa. 2015; 3: 4–8 (in Russian).]
4. Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the ‘niche’ in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1105–15.
5. Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of Cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 893–902.
6. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 90–7.
7. Karli P, Sahin B, Kara F. The incidence of isthmocele may be higher than reported. J Surg Med 2018; 2 (3): 283–7.
8. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ et al. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 2695–702.
9. Schepker N, Garcia-Rocha GJ, Versen-Hoynck F et al. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0
10. Аракелян А.С., Мартынов С.А., Хорошун Н.Д. и др. Диагностика и хирургическая коррекция несостоятельности рубца на матке после КС с использованием лапароскопии и гистероскопии. В кн.: Сухих Г.Т., Адамян Л.В. (ред.). Материалы XXIX конгресса «Новые технологии в диагностике и лечении гинекологических заболеваний», Москва, 7–10 июня 2016 г. М., 2016; с. 179–80.
[Arakelian A.S., Martynov S.A., Khoroshun N.D. et al. Diagnostika i khirurgicheskaia korrektsiia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle KS s ispol'zovaniem laparoskopii i gisteroskopii. V kn.: Sukhikh G.T., Adamian L.V. (red.). Materialy XXIX kongressa "Novye tekhnologii v diagnostike i lechenii ginekologicheskikh zabolevanii', Moscow, 7–10 iiunia 2016 g. Moscow, 2016; p. 179–80 (in Russian).]
11. Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 289–96.
12. Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S et al. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 2014; 121: 145–56.
13. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2011; 18: 234–7.
14. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 75–83.
15. Osser OV, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of Cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in non-pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525–32.
16. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 289–92.
17. Tang X, Wang J, Du Y et al. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 242: 1–6.
18. Satpathy G, Kumar I, Matah M, Verma A. Comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance morphometry and sonography in assessment of post-cesarean uterine scar. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28: 169–74.
19. Wong W, Fung WT. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2008; 7: 104–7.
20. Waniorek A. Hysterography after cesarean section. With special reference to the effect of subsequent delivery on the hysterographic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 94 (1): 42–9.
21. Tahara M, Shimizu T, Shimoura H. Preliminary report of treatment with oral contraceptive pills for intermenstrual vaginal bleeding secondary to a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 477–9.
22. Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q et al. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;
134: 336–9.
23. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 1999; 18: 13–6.
24. Ying-Yi Chen, Ching-Chang Tsai, Kuo-Chung Lan et al. Preliminary report on the use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system for the treatment of intermenstrual bleeding due to previous cesarean delivery scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45 (10): 2015–20.
https://doi.10.1111/jog.14060
25. Vervoort AJMW, Van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp WJK et al. Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2018; 125: 326–34.
26. Tanimura S, Funamoto H, Hosono T et al. New diagnostic criteria and operative strategy for cesarean scar syndrome: endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by cesarean scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41: 1363–9.
27. Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 297–301.
28. Vervoort AJMW, Vissers J, Hehenkamp WJK et al. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2018; 125: 317–25.
29. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E et al. Deficient lower segment cesarean section scars: Prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 72–7.
30. Краснопольская К.В., Попов А.А., Чечнева М.А. и др. Прегравидарная метропластика по поводу несостоятельного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: влияние на естественную фертильность и результаты ЭКО. Проблемы репродукции. 2015; 3: 56–62. DOI: 10.17116/repro201521356-62
[Krasnopol'skaia K.V., Popov A.A., Chechneva M.A. et al. Pregravidarnaia metroplastika po povodu nesostoiatel'nogo rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniia: vliianie na estestvennuiu fertil'nost' i rezul'taty EKO. Problemy reproduktsii. 2015; 3: 56–62. DOI: 10.17116/repro201521356-62 (in Russian).]
31. Пучкова Н.В. Несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика, тактика ведения, репродуктивный прогноз. Автореф. дис. ... канд. мед. наук. М., 2014.
[Puchkova N.V. Nesostoiatel'nyi rubets na matke posle kesareva secheniia: diagnostika, taktika vedeniia, reproduktivnyi prognoz. Avtoref. dis. ... kand. med. nauk. Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).]
32. Seliger G, Chaoui K, Lautenschlager C et al. Technique of sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment in women with previous cesarean delivery: a prospective, pre/intraoperative comparative ultrasound study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 298: 297–306.
33. Zhao W, Liu G, Yang Q, Zhang Ch. A new method using a Foley Catheter to locate the diverticulum in laparoscopic repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 223: 14–7.
34. Макиян З.Н., Адамян Л.В., Карабач В.В., Чупрынин В.Д. Новый метод хирургического лечения несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения с помощью внутриматочного манипулятора с желобом. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 2: 104–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110
[Makiian Z.N., Adamian L.V., Karabach V.V., Chuprynin V.D. Novyi metod khirurgicheskogo lecheniia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle
kesareva secheniia s pomoshch'iu vnutrimatochnogo manipuliatora s
zhelobom. Akusherstvo i ginekologiia. 2020; 2: 104–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110 (in Russian).]
35. Perry CP, Presthus J, Nieves A. Laparoscopic uterine suspension for pain relief: a multicenter study. J Reprod Med 2005; 50: 657–70.
36. Sipahi S, Sasaki K, Miller Ch. The minimally invasive approach to the symptomatic Isthmocele – what does the literature say? A step-by-step primer on laparoscopic isthmocele – excision and repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29: 257–65. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000380
37. Zhang Y. A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous Cesarean scar defect.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 535–41.
38. Ciebiera M, Ciebiera M, Czekanska-Rawska M, Jakiel G. Laparoscopic isthmocele treatment – single center experience. Videosurgery Miniinv 2017; 12: 88–95.
39. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. Sonographic evaluation of surgical repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45 (8): 455–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22449
40. Zhou J, Yao M, Wang H et al. Vaginal repair of Cesarean section scar diverticula that resulted in improved postoperative menstruation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 969–78.
41. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2012; 19: 454–8.
42. Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31–4.
43. Van der Voet LF, Jordans IP, Brolmann HA et al. Changes in the uterine scar during the first year after a caesarean section: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017. https://doi.10.1159/000478046
44. Demers S, Roberge S, Bujold E. Laparoscopic repair of postcesarean uterine scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20: 537.
45. Grace L, Nezhat A. Should Cesarean Scar Defect Be Treated Laparoscopically? A Case Report an Review of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (5): 843. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.030
________________________________________________
2. Setubal A, Alves J, Osorio F et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouch-like defect at the site of cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022
3. Krasnopol'skii V.I., Buianova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Logutova L.S. Nesostoiatel'nost' shva (rubtsa) na matke posle KS: problemy i resheniia (redaktsionnaia stat'ia). Ros. vestn. akushera-ginekologa. 2015; 3: 4–8 (in Russian).
4. Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the ‘niche’ in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1105–15.
5. Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of Cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 893–902.
6. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 90–7.
7. Karli P, Sahin B, Kara F. The incidence of isthmocele may be higher than reported. J Surg Med 2018; 2 (3): 283–7.
8. Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ et al. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 2695–702.
9. Schepker N, Garcia-Rocha GJ, Versen-Hoynck F et al. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3582-0
10. Arakelian A.S., Martynov S.A., Khoroshun N.D. et al. Diagnostika i khirurgicheskaia korrektsiia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle KS s ispol'zovaniem laparoskopii i gisteroskopii. V kn.: Sukhikh G.T., Adamian L.V. (red.). Materialy XXIX kongressa "Novye tekhnologii v diagnostike i lechenii ginekologicheskikh zabolevanii', Moscow, 7–10 iiunia 2016 g. Moscow, 2016; p. 179–80 (in Russian).
11. Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 289–96.
12. Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S et al. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 2014; 121: 145–56.
13. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2011; 18: 234–7.
14. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 75–83.
15. Osser OV, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of Cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in non-pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525–32.
16. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 289–92.
17. Tang X, Wang J, Du Y et al. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 242: 1–6.
18. Satpathy G, Kumar I, Matah M, Verma A. Comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance morphometry and sonography in assessment of post-cesarean uterine scar. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2018; 28: 169–74.
19. Wong W, Fung WT. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2008; 7: 104–7.
20. Waniorek A. Hysterography after cesarean section. With special reference to the effect of subsequent delivery on the hysterographic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 94 (1): 42–9.
21. Tahara M, Shimizu T, Shimoura H. Preliminary report of treatment with oral contraceptive pills for intermenstrual vaginal bleeding secondary to a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 477–9.
22. Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q et al. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;
134: 336–9.
23. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 1999; 18: 13–6.
24. Ying-Yi Chen, Ching-Chang Tsai, Kuo-Chung Lan et al. Preliminary report on the use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine system for the treatment of intermenstrual bleeding due to previous cesarean delivery scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45 (10): 2015–20. https://doi.10.1111/jog.14060
25. Vervoort AJMW, Van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp WJK et al. Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2018; 125: 326–34.
26. Tanimura S, Funamoto H, Hosono T et al. New diagnostic criteria and operative strategy for cesarean scar syndrome: endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by cesarean scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41: 1363–9.
27. Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D et al. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 297–301.
28. Vervoort AJMW, Vissers J, Hehenkamp WJK et al. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2018; 125: 317–25.
29. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E et al. Deficient lower segment cesarean section scars: Prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 72–7.
30. Krasnopol'skaia K.V., Popov A.A., Chechneva M.A. et al. Pregravidarnaia metroplastika po povodu nesostoiatel'nogo rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniia: vliianie na estestvennuiu fertil'nost' i rezul'taty EKO. Problemy reproduktsii. 2015; 3: 56–62. DOI: 10.17116/repro201521356-62 (in Russian).
31. Puchkova N.V. Nesostoiatel'nyi rubets na matke posle kesareva secheniia: diagnostika, taktika vedeniia, reproduktivnyi prognoz. Avtoref. dis. ... kand. med. nauk. Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).
32. Seliger G, Chaoui K, Lautenschlager C et al. Technique of sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment in women with previous cesarean delivery: a prospective, pre/intraoperative comparative ultrasound study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 298: 297–306.
33. Zhao W, Liu G, Yang Q, Zhang Ch. A new method using a Foley Catheter to locate the diverticulum in laparoscopic repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 223: 14–7.
34. Makiian Z.N., Adamian L.V., Karabach V.V., Chuprynin V.D. Novyi metod khirurgicheskogo lecheniia nesostoiatel'nosti rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniia s pomoshch'iu vnutrimatochnogo manipuliatora s zhelobom. Akusherstvo i ginekologiia. 2020; 2: 104–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110 (in Russian).
35. Perry CP, Presthus J, Nieves A. Laparoscopic uterine suspension for pain relief: a multicenter study. J Reprod Med 2005; 50: 657–70.
36. Sipahi S, Sasaki K, Miller Ch. The minimally invasive approach to the symptomatic Isthmocele – what does the literature say? A step-by-step primer on laparoscopic isthmocele – excision and repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29: 257–65.
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000380
37. Zhang Y. A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous Cesarean scar defect.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 535–41.
38. Ciebiera M, Ciebiera M, Czekanska-Rawska M, Jakiel G. Laparoscopic isthmocele treatment – single center experience. Videosurgery Miniinv 2017; 12: 88–95.
39. Pomorski M, Fuchs T, Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Zimmer M. Sonographic evaluation of surgical repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45 (8): 455–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22449
40. Zhou J, Yao M, Wang H et al. Vaginal repair of Cesarean section scar diverticula that resulted in improved postoperative menstruation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23: 969–78.
41. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasiv Gynecol 2012; 19: 454–8.
42. Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31–4.
43. Van der Voet LF, Jordans IP, Brolmann HA et al. Changes in the uterine scar during the first year after a caesarean section: a prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2017. https://doi.10.1159/000478046
44. Demers S, Roberge S, Bujold E. Laparoscopic repair of postcesarean uterine scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20: 537.
45. Grace L, Nezhat A. Should Cesarean Scar Defect Be Treated Laparoscopically? A Case Report an Review of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (5): 843. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.030
Авторы
С.А. Мартынов*
ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии имени академика В.И. Кулакова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
*s_martynov@oparina4.ru
Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russia
*s_martynov@oparina4.ru
ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии имени академика В.И. Кулакова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
*s_martynov@oparina4.ru
________________________________________________
Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russia
*s_martynov@oparina4.ru
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.