Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development

A J M W Vervoort, L B Uittenbogaard, W J K Hehenkamp, H A M Brölmann, B W J Mol, J A F Huirne, A J M W Vervoort, L B Uittenbogaard, W J K Hehenkamp, H A M Brölmann, B W J Mol, J A F Huirne

Abstract

Caesarean section (CS) results in the occurrence of the phenomenon 'niche'. A 'niche' describes the presence of a hypoechoic area within the myometrium of the lower uterine segment, reflecting a discontinuation of the myometrium at the site of a previous CS. Using gel or saline instillation sonohysterography, a niche is identified in the scar in more than half of the women who had had a CS, most with the uterus closed in one single layer, without closure of the peritoneum. An incompletely healed scar is a long-term complication of the CS and is associated with more gynaecological symptoms than is commonly acknowledged. Approximately 30% of women with a niche report spotting at 6-12 months after their CS. Other reported symptoms in women with a niche are dysmenorrhoea, chronic pelvic pain and dyspareunia. Given the association between a niche and gynaecological symptoms, obstetric complications and potentially with subfertility, it is important to elucidate the aetiology of niche development after CS in order to develop preventive strategies. Based on current published data and our observations during sonographic, hysteroscopic and laparoscopic evaluations of niches we postulate some hypotheses on niche development. Possible factors that could play a role in niche development include a very low incision through cervical tissue, inadequate suturing technique during closure of the uterine scar, surgical interventions that increase adhesion formation or patient-related factors that impair wound healing or increase inflammation or adhesion formation.

Keywords: Caesarean section; abnormal uterine bleeding; adhesion formation; cervix; niche; scar; spotting; surgical techniques; uterus.

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Image of a niche using transvaginal ultrasound in mid-sagittal and transversal plane and a schematic diagram of a niche and hysteroscopic image. (a) Mid-sagittal plane; (b) transversal plane; (c) schematic diagram of a niche; (d) niche seen by hysteroscopy, the internal os is out of the scope of this picture.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Laparoscopic view on a mucus-containing large niche that is located in the lower cervix. Mucus is expelled during a laparoscopic niche resection after dissection of the bladder and opening of the niche.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Schematic diagram of incomplete closure of the myometrium and counteracting forces on the uterine scar due to the retraction of adhesions between the scar and the abdominal wall in a retroflected uterus. (a) Single-layer closure of the uterus may increase niche formation due to greater risk of incomplete closure. (b) Counteracting forces on the Caesarean section uterine scar, due to retraction of adhesions between the uterine scar and the abdominal wall in a retroflected uterus, may impair wound healing and increase the formation of niches.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Laparoscopic image of a uterus with a large niche, illumination of the hysteroscopic light in the niche can be seen directly under the adhesions attached to the niche. Adhesions between the niche and the abdominal wall seen during laparoscopy (a), owing to the diaphany of the combined hysteroscopy it can be seen that the adhesions are located at the deepest point of the niche. Hysteroscopic image of the combined of a part of the large niche surface be seen in (b).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Macroscopic image of a uterus with a niche, removed by laparoscopy because of abnormal uterine bleeding and dysmenorrhoea. Note that the adhesions are located at the deepest point of (a relatively small) niche.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Laparoscopic view on adhesions between the lower uterine segment and the bladder at the site of a niche.

References

    1. Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El SM, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Mathews JE, Masood SN et al. . Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013;382:234–248.
    1. Awonuga AO, Fletcher NM, Saed GM, Diamond MP. Postoperative adhesion development following cesarean and open intra-abdominal gynecological operations: a review. Reprod Sci 2011;18:1166–1185.
    1. Barros AJ, Santos IS, Matijasevich A, Domingues MR, Silveira M, Barros FC, Victora CG. Patterns of deliveries in a Brazilian birth cohort: almost universal cesarean sections for the better-off. Rev Saude Publica 2011;45:635–643.
    1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van LP, Wagner M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98–113.
    1. 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 2011;37:93–99.
    1. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43:372–382.
    1. Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, Madri JA, Buhimschi IA. Myometrial wound healing post-Cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol 2010;177:197–207.
    1. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1326–1330.
    1. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E, Abdous B, Sidi EA, Kinch R, Miner L et al. . The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:43–50.
    1. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010;117:1366–1376.
    1. Ceci O, Cantatore C, Scioscia M, Nardelli C, Ravi M, Vimercati A, Bettocchi S. Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38:1302–1307.
    1. Chapa HO, Venegas G, Vanduyne CP, Antonetti AG, Sandate JP, Silver L. Peritoneal adhesion prevention at cesarean section: an analysis of the effectiveness of an absorbable adhesion barrier. J Reprod Med 2011;56:103–109.
    1. Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:16–18.
    1. Cheong YC, Premkumar G, Metwally M, Peacock JL, Li TC. To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;147:3–8.
    1. Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:S2–10.
    1. Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:89–92.
    1. Deng W, Klemetti R, Long Q, Wu Z, Duan C, Zhang WH, Ronsmans C, Zhang Y, Hemminki E. Cesarean section in Shanghai: women's or healthcare provider's preferences? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:285.
    1. Diaz SD, Jones JE, Seryakov M, Mann WJ. Uterine rupture and dehiscence: ten-year review and case-control study. South Med J 2002;95:431–435.
    1. Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, Grivell RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;7:CD004732.
    1. Durnwald C, Mercer B. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:925–929.
    1. Edwards RK, Ingersoll M, Gerkin RD, Bodea-Braescu AV, Lin MG. Carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier placement at primary cesarean delivery and outcomes at repeat cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:923–928.
    1. Feng XL, Wang Y, An L, Ronsmans C. Cesarean section in the People's Republic of China: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health 2014;6:59–74.
    1. Fushiki H, Ikoma T, Kobayashi H, Yoshimoto H. Efficacy of Seprafilm as an adhesion prevention barrier in cesarean sections. Obstet Gynecol Treat 2005;91:557–561.
    1. Fylstra DL. Ectopic pregnancy within a cesarean scar: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002;57:537–543.
    1. Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Organization, World Health Report, Background Paper, 30, 2010.
    1. Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH. Impact of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2013;28:1943–1952.
    1. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, van der Meulen JH, Templeton A. A population-based cohort study of the effect of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1320–1326.
    1. Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1108–1111.
    1. Hellebrekers BW, Kooistra T. Pathogenesis of postoperative adhesion formation. Br J Surg 2011;98:1503–1516.
    1. Hofmeyer GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:CD000166.
    1. Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:1089–1092.
    1. Johanson R, Newburn M, Macfarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? BMJ 2002;324:892–895.
    1. Jurkovic D, Hillaby K, Woelfer B, Lawrence A, Salim R, Elson CJ. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21:220–227.
    1. Kapustian V, Anteby EY, Gdalevich M, Shenhav S, Lavie O, Gemer O. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:56–54.
    1. Kiefer DG, Muscat JC, Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. A randomized controlled trial evaluating safety and efficacy of sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethylcellulose at cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynaecol 2014;123:59s–60s.
    1. Litwicka K, Greco E. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a review of management options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013;25:456–461.
    1. Makoha FW, Felimban HM, Fathuddien MA, Roomi F, Ghabra T. Multiple cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;87:227–232.
    1. 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;20:1105–1115.
    1. Morales KJ, Gordon MC, Bates GW Jr. Postcesarean delivery adhesions associated with delayed delivery of infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:461–466.
    1. Moynihan R, Smith R. Too much medicine? BMJ 2002;324:859–860.
    1. Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij de Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Lees C, Brolmann HA et al. . Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:252–259.
    1. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Van HS, Van CB et al. . Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:672–678.
    1. Nice guideline. Evidence Update 35 – Caesarean section. A summary of selected new evidence relevant to NICE clinical guideline 132 ‘Caesarean section’ (2011). 2013.
    1. O'Neill HA, Egan G, Walsh CA, Cotter AM, Walsh SR. Omission of the bladder flap at caesarean section reduces delivery time without increased morbidity: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;174:20–26.
    1. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:90–97.
    1. 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.
    1. Osterman MJ, Martin JA. Primary cesarean delivery rates, by state: results from the revised birth certificate, 2006–2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2014;63:1–11.
    1. Pandit SN, Khan RJ. Surgical techniques for performing caesarean section including CS at full dilatation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27:179–195.
    1. Plante BN, Sukalich S, Elliott J. Assessment of adhesions at the time of repeat cesarean delivery with or without prior use of an adhesion barrier. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:75s–76s.
    1. Poidevin LO. The value of hysterography in the prediction of cesarean section wound defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961;81:67–71.
    1. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N, Gauthier RJ, Hudic I, Shipp TD, Weimar CH et al. . Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011;115:5–10.
    1. Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, Chaillet N, Moore L, Bujold E. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211:453–460.
    1. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Nippita TA, Bowen JR, Shand AW. Association of prelabor cesarean delivery with reduced mortality in twins born near term. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:103–110.
    1. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, Lin MY, Tsai YL, Hwang JL. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:247–253.
    1. Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y, Wang H, Schreiber A, Li X, Tai S, Zhao X, Teng J, Zhang L et al. . Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG 2011;118:410–422.
    1. Silver RM. Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term maternal outcomes. Semin Perinatol 2010;34:258–266.
    1. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists workshop. In reply. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:687.
    1. The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007;7:24.
    1. Thurmond AS, Harvey WJ, Smith SA. Cesarean section scar as a cause of abnormal vaginal bleeding: diagnosis by sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 1999;18:13–16.
    1. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA. The diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:44–13.
    1. Tulandi T, Agdi M, Zarei A, Miner L, Sikirica V. Adhesion development and morbidity after repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:56.
    1. Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Fogertey P, Roehl K, Stamilio D, Macones GA. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:815–821.
    1. van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. 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 2014a;121:236–244.
    1. van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S, BijdeVaate AJ, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 2014b;121:145–156.
    1. Vlemmix F, Mol BW, Kok M. Risks of vaginal breech delivery at term compared to elective cesarean section–reply to comment by Page. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:442.
    1. Wagner M. Fish can't see water: the need to humanize birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;75 Suppl 1:S25–S37.
    1. Walfisch A, Beloosesky R, Shrim A, Hallak M. Adhesion prevention after cesarean delivery: evidence, and lack of it. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211:446–452.
    1. Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:85–89.
    1. Yasmin S, Sadaf J, Fatima N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat caesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011;21:522–526.
    1. Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygun M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124:32–36.
    1. Zimmer EZ, Bardin R, Tamir A, Bronshtein M. Sonographic imaging of cervical scars after Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:594–598.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅