Факторы риска и механизмы формирования дефектов рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения

1. Donnez O. Cesarean scar defects: management of an iatrogenic pathology whose prevalence has dramatically increased. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4):704-16. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.037
2. 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. DOI:10.5694/mja16.00832
3. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, et al. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
4. Здравоохранение в России. 2021. Статистический сборник. М.: Росстат, 2021. Режим доступа: https://gks.ru/bgd/regl/b21_34/Main.htm Ссылка активна на 16.02.2022 [Public health in Russia. 2021. Statistical Digest. Moscow: Rosstat, 2021. Available at: https://gks.ru/bgd/regl/b21_34/Main.htm Accessed: 16.02.2022 (in Russian)].
5. Краснопольский В.И., Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Логутова Л.С. Несостоятельность шва (рубца) на матке после кесарева сечения: проблемы и решения (редакционная статья). Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2015;15(3):4-8 [Krasnopol'skii VI, Buianova SN, Shchukina NA, Logutova LS. Uterine suture (scar) incompetence after cesarean section: Problems and solutions (an editorial). Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015;15(3):4-8 (in Russian)]. 
DOI:10.17116/rosakush20151534-8
6. Venturella R, Quaresima P, Micieli M, et al. Non-obstetrical indications for cesarean section: a state-of-the-art review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(1):9-16.
DOI:10.1007/s00404-018-4742-4
7. Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(29-30):489-95. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489
8. Клинические рекомендации МЗ РФ. Роды одноплодные, родоразрешение путем кесарева сечения. М. 2021. Режим доступа: 
http://minzdravrm.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rodi_odnoplodtii_rodorazrechenie_putem_kesareva.pdf Ссылка активна на 16.02.2022 [Klinicheskie rekomendatsii MZ RF. Rody odnoplodnye, rodorazreshenie putem kesareva secheniia. Moscow. 2021. Available at: http://minzdravrm.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rodi_odnoplodtii_rodorazrechenie_putem_kesareva.pdf Accessed: 16.02.2022 (in Russian)].
9. Мартынов С.А. Дефект рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика и лечение вне беременности. Гинекология. 2020;22(3):6-10 
[Martynov SA. Cesarean scar defects: diagnosis and treatment in non-pregnant women. Gynecology. 2020;22(3):6-10 (in Russian)]. DOI:10.26442/20795696.2020.3.200189
10. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):90-7. DOI:10.1002/uog.6395
11. 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(12):2695-702. DOI:10.1093/humrep/dev240
12. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):525-32. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209abf0
13. Bij de Vaate AJM, Brölmann HAM, van der Voet LF, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;37(1):93-9. DOI:10.1002/uog.8864
14. Van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, et al. Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG. 2014;121(2):236-44. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.12542
15. 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(1):289-96.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033
16. 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(9):1363-9. DOI:10.1111/jog.12738
17. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(2):234-7. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.011
18. Defrère S, Lousse JC, González-Ramos R, et al. Potential involvement of iron in the pathogenesis of peritoneal endometriosis. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(7):377-85. DOI:10.1093/molehr/gan033
19. Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 
2006;107(6):1373-81. DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000218690.24494.ce
20. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, et al. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):672-8. DOI:10.1002/uog.12423
21. Mynbaev O, Babenko TI, Ahmadi F, et al. Uterine Morbidity: Cesarean Section Scar Complications. In: A. Tinelli, L. Alonso Pacheco, S. Haimovich, editors. Hysteroscopy. Springer, Cham, 2018; p. 421-68. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-57559-9_41
22. Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obst Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1458-61. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.074
23. Thurn L, Lindqvist PG, Jakobsson M, et al. Abnormally invasive placenta-prevalence, risk factors and antenatal suspicion: results from a large population-based pregnancy cohort study in the Nordic countries. BJOG. 2016;123(8):1348-55. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13547
24. Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, 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. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.916
25. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, et al. Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(4):429-34. DOI:10.1080/00016340500430436
26. CORONIS collaborative group; Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):62-72. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00204-X
27. Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Dudenhausen JW, et al. 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. DOI:10.1111/aogs.13213
28. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1119-26.
DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02631.x
29. Chen Y, Han P, Wang YJ, Li YX. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(2):355-61.
DOI:10.1007/s00404-017-4417-6
30. Vikhareva O, Rickle GS, Lavesson T, et al. Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(4):438-42. DOI:10.1002/uog.20184
31. 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(1):72-7. DOI:10.1002/uog.5200
32. Han G, Ceilley R. Chronic Wound Healing: A Review of Current Management and Treatments. Adv Ther. 2017;34(3):599-610. DOI:10.1007/s12325-017-0478-y
33. Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, et al. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):85-9. DOI:10.1002/uog.6405
34. Ryo E, Sakurai R, Kamata H, et al. Changes in uterine flexion caused by cesarean section: correlation between post-flexion and deficient cesarean section scars. J Med Ultrason. 2016;43(2):237-42. DOI:10.1007/s10396-015-0678-5
35. Woodd SL, Montoya A, Barreix M, et al. Incidence of maternal peripartum infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16(12):e1002984. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002984
36. Taylor M, Pillarisetty LS. Endometritis. [Updated 2021 Apr 4]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2022. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553124/ Accessed: 16.02.2022
37. Walfisch A, Beloosesky R, Shrim A, Hallak M. Adhesion prevention after cesarean delivery: evidence, and lack of it. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):446-52. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.027
38. Клеменов А.В., Ткачева О.Н., Верткин А.Л. Дисплазия соединительной ткани и беременность (обзор). Терапевтический архив. 2004;79(11):80-3 [Klemenov AV, Tkacheva ON, Vertkin AL. Connective tissue dysplasia and pregnancy (review). Terapevticheskii Arkhiv. 2004;79(11):80-3 (in Russian)].
39. Кесова М.И. Беременность и недифференцированная дисплазия соединительной ткани: патогенез, клиника, диагностика.: дис. … докт. мед. наук. М. 2012. Режим доступа: https://www.dissercat.com/content/beremennost-i-nedifferentsirovannaya-displaziya-soedinitelnoi-tkan... Ссылка активна на 16.02.2022 [Kesova MI. Beremennost' i nedifferentsirovannaia displaziia soedinitel'noi tkani: patogenez, klinika, diagnostika.: dis. … dokt. med. nauk. Moscow. 2012. Available at: https://www.dissercat.com/content/beremennost-i-nedifferentsirovannaya-displaziya-soedinitelnoi-tkan... Accessed: 16.02.2022 (in Russian)].
40. Кузин М.И., Костюченок Б.М. Раны и раневая инфекция: Рук-во для врачей. 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: Медицина, 1990; с. 38-82 [Kuzin MI, Kostiuchenok BM. Rany i ranevaia infektsiia: Ruk-vo dlia vrachei. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow: Meditsina, 1990; p. 38-82 (in Russian)].
41. Gonzalez AC, Costa TF, Andrade ZA, Medrado AR. Wound healing – A literature review. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91(5):614-20. DOI:10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164741
42. Lindley LE, Stojadinovic O, Pastar I, Tomic-Canic M. Biology and Biomarkers for Wound Healing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3 Suppl.):18S-28S. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002682
43. Qing C. The molecular biology in wound healing & non-healing wound. Chinese J Traumatol. 2017;20(4):189-93. DOI:10.1016/j.cjtee.2017.06.001
44. Farrington-Rock C, Crofts NJ, Doherty MJ, et al. Chondrogenic and adipogenic potential of microvascular pericytes. Circulation. 2004;110:2226-32. DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.0000144457.55518.E5
45. Lofrumento DD, Di Nardo MA, De Falco M, Di Lieto A. Uterine Wound Healing: A Complex Process Mediated by Proteins and Peptides. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2017;18:125-8. DOI:10.2174/1389203717666160322145939
46. Ingber DE. Control of capillary growth and differentiation by extracellular matrix. Use of a tensegrity (tensional integrity) mechanism for signal processing. Chest. 1991;99(3 Suppl.):34S-40S.
47. Pienta KJ, Coffey DS. Cellular harmonic information transfer through a tissue tensegrity-matrix system. Med Hypotheses. 1991;34(1):88-95.
DOI:10.1016/0306-9877(91)90072-7
48. Ingber DE. Cellular tensegrity: defining new rules of biological design that govern the cytoskeleton. J Cell Sci. 1993;104(Pt. 3):613-27. DOI:10.1242/jcs.104.3.613
49. Ермаков А.С. Теория тенсегрити и пространственная организация живого. Онтогенез. 2018;49(2):101-15 [Ermakov AS. The theory of tensegrity and spatial organization of living matter. Russian Journal of Developmental Biology. «Ontogenez». 2018;49(2):101-15 (in Russian)].
50. Zwanenburg PR, Timmermans FW, Timmer AS, et al. A systematic review evaluating the influence of incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on scarring. Wound Repair Regen. 2021;29(1):8-19. DOI:10.1111/wrr.12858
51. Wang Z, Huang X, Zan T, et al. A modified scar model with controlled tension on secondary wound healing in mice. Burns Trauma. 2020;8:tkaa013. DOI:10.1093/burnst/tkaa013
52. Kilpadi DV, Lessing C, Derrick K. Healed porcine incisions previously treated with a surgical incision management system: mechanical, histomorphometric and gene expression properties. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38(4):767-78. DOI:10.1007/s00266-014-0339-x
53. Prevena Incision Management System Instructions for Use for Clinicians. KCI, San Antonio. 2013. Available at: https://www.mykci.com/-/media/Project/Acelity/Acelity-Base-Sites/shared/PDF/USA-PDF/prevena-restor-i... Accessed: 16.02.2022 
54. Пекарев О.Г., Майбородин И.В., Пекарева Е.О., и др. Применение стволовых клеток для улучшения репаративных свойств рубца миометрия. Доктор.Ру. 2017;3(132):20-5 [Pekarev OG, Maiborodin IV, Pekareva YeO. Using stem cells to improve myometrial scar repair. Doctor.Ru. 2017;3(132):20-5 (in Russian)].

________________________________________________

1. Donnez O. Cesarean scar defects: management of an iatrogenic pathology whose prevalence has dramatically increased. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4):704-16. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.037
2. 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. DOI:10.5694/mja16.00832
3. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, et al. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
4. Public health in Russia. 2021. Statistical Digest. Moscow: Rosstat, 2021. Available at: https://gks.ru/bgd/regl/b21_34/Main.htm Accessed: 16.02.2022 (in Russian).
5. Krasnopol'skii VI, Buianova SN, Shchukina NA, Logutova LS. Uterine suture (scar) incompetence after cesarean section: Problems and solutions (an editorial). Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015;15(3):4-8 (in Russian). 
DOI:10.17116/rosakush20151534-8
6. Venturella R, Quaresima P, Micieli M, et al. Non-obstetrical indications for cesarean section: a state-of-the-art review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(1):9-16.
DOI:10.1007/s00404-018-4742-4
7. Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(29-30):489-95. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489
8. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii MZ RF. Rody odnoplodnye, rodorazreshenie putem kesareva secheniia. Moscow. 2021. Available at: http://minzdravrm.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rodi_odnoplodtii_rodorazrechenie_putem_kesareva.pdf Accessed: 16.02.2022 (in Russian).
9. Martynov SA. Cesarean scar defects: diagnosis and treatment in non-pregnant women. Gynecology. 2020;22(3):6-10 (in Russian). DOI:10.26442/20795696.2020.3.200189
10. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):90-7. DOI:10.1002/uog.6395
11. 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(12):2695-702. DOI:10.1093/humrep/dev240
12. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):525-32. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209abf0
13. Bij de Vaate AJM, Brölmann HAM, van der Voet LF, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;37(1):93-9. DOI:10.1002/uog.8864
14. Van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, et al. Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG. 2014;121(2):236-44. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.12542
15. 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(1):289-96.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033
16. 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(9):1363-9. DOI:10.1111/jog.12738
17. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(2):234-7. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.10.011
18. Defrère S, Lousse JC, González-Ramos R, et al. Potential involvement of iron in the pathogenesis of peritoneal endometriosis. Mol Hum Reprod. 2008;14(7):377-85. DOI:10.1093/molehr/gan033
19. Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 
2006;107(6):1373-81. DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000218690.24494.ce
20. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, et al. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):672-8. DOI:10.1002/uog.12423
21. Mynbaev O, Babenko TI, Ahmadi F, et al. Uterine Morbidity: Cesarean Section Scar Complications. In: A. Tinelli, L. Alonso Pacheco, S. Haimovich, editors. Hysteroscopy. Springer, Cham, 2018; p. 421-68. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-57559-9_41
22. Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obst Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1458-61. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.074
23. Thurn L, Lindqvist PG, Jakobsson M, et al. Abnormally invasive placenta-prevalence, risk factors and antenatal suspicion: results from a large population-based pregnancy cohort study in the Nordic countries. BJOG. 2016;123(8):1348-55. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13547
24. Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, 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. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.916
25. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, et al. Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(4):429-34. DOI:10.1080/00016340500430436
26. CORONIS collaborative group; Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):62-72. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00204-X
27. Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Dudenhausen JW, et al. 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. DOI:10.1111/aogs.13213
28. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1119-26.
DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02631.x
29. Chen Y, Han P, Wang YJ, Li YX. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(2):355-61.
DOI:10.1007/s00404-017-4417-6
30. Vikhareva O, Rickle GS, Lavesson T, et al. Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(4):438-42. DOI:10.1002/uog.20184
31. 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(1):72-7. DOI:10.1002/uog.5200
32. Han G, Ceilley R. Chronic Wound Healing: A Review of Current Management and Treatments. Adv Ther. 2017;34(3):599-610. DOI:10.1007/s12325-017-0478-y
33. Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, et al. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):85-9. DOI:10.1002/uog.6405
34. Ryo E, Sakurai R, Kamata H, et al. Changes in uterine flexion caused by cesarean section: correlation between post-flexion and deficient cesarean section scars. J Med Ultrason. 2016;43(2):237-42. DOI:10.1007/s10396-015-0678-5
35. Woodd SL, Montoya A, Barreix M, et al. Incidence of maternal peripartum infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2019;16(12):e1002984. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002984
36. Taylor M, Pillarisetty LS. Endometritis. [Updated 2021 Apr 4]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2022. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553124/ Accessed: 16.02.2022
37. Walfisch A, Beloosesky R, Shrim A, Hallak M. Adhesion prevention after cesarean delivery: evidence, and lack of it. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):446-52. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.027
38. Klemenov AV, Tkacheva ON, Vertkin AL. Connective tissue dysplasia and pregnancy (review). Terapevticheskii Arkhiv. 2004;79(11):80-3 (in Russian).
39. Kesova MI. Beremennost' i nedifferentsirovannaia displaziia soedinitel'noi tkani: patogenez, klinika, diagnostika.: dis. … dokt. med. nauk. Moscow. 2012. Available at: https://www.dissercat.com/content/beremennost-i-nedifferentsirovannaya-displaziya-soedinitelnoi-tkan... Accessed: 16.02.2022 (in Russian).
40. Kuzin MI, Kostiuchenok BM. Rany i ranevaia infektsiia: Ruk-vo dlia vrachei. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow: Meditsina, 1990; p. 38-82 (in Russian).
41. Gonzalez AC, Costa TF, Andrade ZA, Medrado AR. Wound healing – A literature review. An Bras Dermatol. 2016;91(5):614-20. DOI:10.1590/abd1806-4841.20164741
42. Lindley LE, Stojadinovic O, Pastar I, Tomic-Canic M. Biology and Biomarkers for Wound Healing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3 Suppl.):18S-28S. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002682
43. Qing C. The molecular biology in wound healing & non-healing wound. Chinese J Traumatol. 2017;20(4):189-93. DOI:10.1016/j.cjtee.2017.06.001
44. Farrington-Rock C, Crofts NJ, Doherty MJ, et al. Chondrogenic and adipogenic potential of microvascular pericytes. Circulation. 2004;110:2226-32. DOI:10.1161/01.CIR.0000144457.55518.E5
45. Lofrumento DD, Di Nardo MA, De Falco M, Di Lieto A. Uterine Wound Healing: A Complex Process Mediated by Proteins and Peptides. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2017;18:125-8. DOI:10.2174/1389203717666160322145939
46. Ingber DE. Control of capillary growth and differentiation by extracellular matrix. Use of a tensegrity (tensional integrity) mechanism for signal processing. Chest. 1991;99(3 Suppl.):34S-40S.
47. Pienta KJ, Coffey DS. Cellular harmonic information transfer through a tissue tensegrity-matrix system. Med Hypotheses. 1991;34(1):88-95.
DOI:10.1016/0306-9877(91)90072-7
48. Ingber DE. Cellular tensegrity: defining new rules of biological design that govern the cytoskeleton. J Cell Sci. 1993;104(Pt. 3):613-27. DOI:10.1242/jcs.104.3.613
49. Ermakov AS. The theory of tensegrity and spatial organization of living matter. Russian Journal of Developmental Biology. «Ontogenez». 2018;49(2):101-15 (in Russian).
50. Zwanenburg PR, Timmermans FW, Timmer AS, et al. A systematic review evaluating the influence of incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on scarring. Wound Repair Regen. 2021;29(1):8-19. DOI:10.1111/wrr.12858
51. Wang Z, Huang X, Zan T, et al. A modified scar model with controlled tension on secondary wound healing in mice. Burns Trauma. 2020;8:tkaa013. DOI:10.1093/burnst/tkaa013
52. Kilpadi DV, Lessing C, Derrick K. Healed porcine incisions previously treated with a surgical incision management system: mechanical, histomorphometric and gene expression properties. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38(4):767-78. DOI:10.1007/s00266-014-0339-x
53. Prevena Incision Management System Instructions for Use for Clinicians. KCI, San Antonio. 2013. Available at: https://www.mykci.com/-/media/Project/Acelity/Acelity-Base-Sites/shared/PDF/USA-PDF/prevena-restor-i... Accessed: 16.02.2022 
54. Pekarev OG, Maiborodin IV, Pekareva YeO. Using stem cells to improve myometrial scar repair. Doctor.Ru. 2017;3(132):20-5 (in Russian).

Т.А. Сидорова*, С.А. Мартынов

ФГБУ «Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
*t_sidorova@oparina4.ru

________________________________________________

Tatyana A. Sidorova*, Sergey A. Martynov

Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Moscow, Russia
*t_sidorova@oparina4.ru