“Slow” Cesarean Section by Inconsistent Corporal Scar (Clinical Case)
https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2018-8-2-75-80
Abstract
Introduction. Increasing the initial number of caesarean delivery operations involves certain risks when planning and carrying subsequent pregnancies. Despite the trend towards operative childbirth being gradually being replaced by natural, the frequency of recurrent caesarean is higher than the prevailing rate due to scar inconsistency and the presence of a “classic” (corporal) scar on the uterus. The use of corporal access to date is gradually being replaced by less traumatic access. The operation of “slow” caesarean section is considered as an alternative approach to surgical delivery.
Purpose and objectives. To analyse the operation of “slow” caesarean section in the presence of corporal scars on the uterus.
Materials and methods. The resulted clinical case of incomplete rupture of the uterus by corporal scar in the second pregnancy at a period of 38 weeks. Corporal scarring as a result of caesarean operations in the case of interruption of first pregnancy at a period of 22–23 weeks.
Results. The patient was discharged in a satisfactory condition on the 5th day with the child. Postoperative period without complications; results of analyses performed prior to discharge within normal limits.
Discussion. The conducted corporal incision at the first pregnancy was inexpedient due to presenting increased risks in subsequent pregnancies. For the termination of pregnancy in the second trimester, it was necessary to consider therapeutic methods, the operations of a minor caesarean section or a caesarean section in the lower segment of the uterus.
Conclusion. Conducting “slow” caesarean section has the following advantages over classic caesarean section: soft adaptation of the foetus to environmental conditions, purification of the mucous oropharynx of the foetus, establishing a stronger bond between the mother and her future child. In future, we plan to conduct a clinical evaluation of children delivered through a “slow” caesarean section.
About the Authors
R. I. Safiullin
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor at the Department of Urology with the Course of Additional Professional Education,
3 Lenin str., Ufa, 450008
I. I. Musin
Bashkir State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology No. 2,
3 Lenin str., Ufa, 450008
A. R. Molokanova
Kazan State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Student of the Faculty of General Medicine,
49 Butlerova str., Kazan, 420012
References
1. Й Gui B., Danza F.M., Valentini A.L., Laino M.E., Caruso A., Carducci B., et al. Multidetector CT appearance of the pelvis after cesarean delivery: normal and abnormal acute findings. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2016;22(6):534–41. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2016.15593
2. Filipcikova R., Oborna I., Brezinova J., Bezdickova M., Laichman S., Dobias M., et al. Dehiscent scar in the lower uterine segment after Caesarean section and IVF infertility treatment: a case report. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2014;158(4):654–8. DOI: 10.5507/bp.2013.001
3. Gonzalez N., Tulandi T. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):731–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.020
4. Ades A., Parghi S. Laparoscopic resection of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(4):533–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.11.006
5. Zahalkova L., Kacerovsky M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. Ceska Gynekol. 2016;81(6):414–9. PMID: 27918158.
6. Morgan-Ortiz F., Retes-Angulo B., Retes-Lapizco B., Morgan-Ruiz F.V. Repeated ectopic pregnancy in previous caesarean scar: a case report and literature review. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2015;83(10):641–7. PMID: 26859926.
7. Gao L., Huang Z., Zhang X., Zhou N., Huang X., Wang X. Reproductive outcomes following cesarean scar pregnancy — a case series and review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;200:102–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.02.039
8. Jauniaux E., Bhide A. Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis and outcome of placenta previaaccreta after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):27–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.050
9. Barinov S.V., Bindyuk A.V., Ralko V.V., Grebenyuk O.A., Ilyinykh I.M. On delivery in pregnant women with a uterine scar. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist = Rossiyskiy vestnik akushera-ginekologa. 2015;15(4):29–33. DOI: 10.17116/rosakush201515429-33 (in Russ.)
10. Sarbasova A.E., Sinchikhin S.P., Mamiev O.B., Dzhumanova Z.D., Karnaukh M.M. Cesarean section in modern obstetrics: epidemiology, importance for prevention of obstetric and perinatal pathology, complications. Astrakhan Medical Journal. 2016;11(2):57–64. (in Russ.)
11. Gumeniuk E.G., Kormakova T.L., Karpechenko A.V., Marabjan L.M. Repeated caesarean section in modern obstetrics. Are there decreasing reserves?. RUDN journal of Medicine. 2015;(3):117–22. (in Russ.)
12. Markarian N.M., Golikova T.P., Esipova L.N. Caesarean section. Unresolved questions. RUDN journal of Medicine. 2016;(2):143–9. (in Russ.)
13. Stevens J., Schmied V., Burns E., Dahlen H. Immediate or early skin-toskin contact after a Caesarean section: a review of the literature. Matern Child Nutr. 2014;10(4):456–73. DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12128
14. Uharcek P., Brestansky A., Ravinger J., Manova A., Zajacova M. Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness at term in women with previous cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(3):609–12. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3687-0
15. Fink G., Gerber S., Dean G. Misoprostol in abortion care: review and update. Curr Obstet Gynecol Reports. 2017;6(2):100–8. DOI: 10.1007/s13669-017-0202-6
16. Winikoff B., Dzuba I.G., Chong E., Goldberg A.B., Lichtenberg E.S., Ball C., et al. Extending outpatient medical abortion services through 70 days of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1070–6. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31826c315f
17. Abbas D.F., Blum J., Ngoc N.T., Nga N.T., Chi H.T., Martin R., et al. Simultaneous administration compared with a 24-hour mifepristonemisoprostol interval in second-trimester abortion: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):1077–83. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001688
18. Marwah S., Gupta S., Batra N.P., Bhasin V., Sarna V., Kaur N. A comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of vaginal vs oral prostaglandin E1 analogue (Misoprostol) in management of first trimester missed abortion. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(5):QC14–8. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18178.7891
19. Wu C., Chen X., Mei Z., Zhou J., Wu L., Chiu W.-H., et al. A preliminary study of uterine scar tissue following cesarean section. J Perinat Med. 2018;46(4):379–86. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2016-0347
20. Tyurina A.A., Yashchuk A.G., Dautova L.A., Bikmullina D.I., Zakirova A.I. Features of breastfeeding of women with uterine myoma after cesarean section. Practical medicine. 2017;(7):138–42. (in Russ.)
21. Kadhel P., Toto T., Janky E. Vaginal cesarean section: heir to, but not legacy of Duhrssen’s incision. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(5):1063– 7. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3539-3
22. Savelyeva G.M., Karaganova E.Ya. Caesarean section. Obstetrics and gynecology: News, Opinions, Training. 2015;(2):53–60. (in Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Safiullin R.I., Musin I.I., Molokanova A.R. “Slow” Cesarean Section by Inconsistent Corporal Scar (Clinical Case). Creative surgery and oncology. 2018;8(2):159-164. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2018-8-2-75-80
Views:
2960
Email this article 