Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2011; 28(7): 543-550
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1272973
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Augmenting Myometrial Healing after Cesarean Delivery: Use of an Adjuvant Biologic Graft Placement in an Ovine Model

John M. O'Brien1 , Daniel Whetham2 , Christopher Fecteau3 , John Jansen4 , Michael Hiles3
  • 1University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
  • 2Cook Medical Corporation, Bloomington, Indiana
  • 3Cook Biotech Incorporated, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • 4Central Baptist Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 March 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

We sought to reduce long-term complications after cesarean delivery by improving myometrial healing. Eight sheep (three with twins) underwent cesarean delivery. Hysterotomy sites were repaired in equal parts by suture alone or suture with a juxtaposed graft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN). At 90 days postsurgery, scar characteristics and tensile strength testing were assessed. The mean hysterotomy closure time was on average 1 minute, 14 seconds longer for those undergoing graft placement (p = 0.36). The mean scar thickness was 3.0 ± 0.4 mm for controls versus 3.8 ± 1.2 mm for the intervention group (p = 0.047). Tensile strength testing did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups. Histological examination of the myometrial scar showed no significant differences in inflammatory reaction or endometrial inclusions; however, neoangiogenesis was significantly enhanced. Myometrial repair incorporating a graft increased scar thickness and neoangiogenesis. This methodology did not incite adenomyosis or enhance inflammation within the scar.

KEYWORDS

Cesarean delivery - graft - hysterotomy - ovine model - small intestinal submucosa

REFERENCES

  • 1 Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch I E. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar.  J Ultrasound Med. 2001;  20 1105-1115
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Armstrong V, Hansen W F, VanVoorhis B J, Syrop C H. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound.  2003;  101 61-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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 72-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al.. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  23 289-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Osser O V, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  34 90-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wang C B, Chiu W W, Lee C Y, Sun Y L, Lin Y H, Tseng C J. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  34 85-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rotas M A, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  107 1373-1381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 O'Brien J M, Barton J R, Donaldson E S. The management of placenta percreta: conservative and operative strategies.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  175 1632-1638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity.  Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  99 976-980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Boyle R K, Waters B A, O'Rourke P K. Blood transfusion for caesarean delivery complicated by placenta praevia.  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;  49 627-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe H J, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus.  Lancet. 1996;  347 281-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pollio F, Staibano S, Mascolo M et al.. Uterine dehiscence in term pregnant patients with one previous cesarean delivery: growth factor immunoexpression and collagen content in the scarred lower uterine segment.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  194 527-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier R J. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  201 320, e1-e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hodde J, Janis A, Ernst D, Zopf D, Sherman D, Johnson C. Effects of sterilization on an extracellular matrix scaffold: part I. Composition and matrix architecture.  J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;  18 537-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hiles M, Record Ritchie R D, Altizer A M. Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair? A systematic review of the literature.  Surg Innov. 2009;  16 26-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sung V W, Rogers R G, Schaffer J I Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group et al. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review.  Obstet Gynecol. 2008;  112 1131-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alperin M, Feola A, Meyn L, Duerr R, Abramowitch S, Moalli P. Collagen scaffold: a treatment for simulated maternal birth injury in the rat model.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;  202 589, e1-e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jernigan T W, Croce M A, Cagiannos C, Shell D H, Handorf C R, Fabian T C. Small intestinal submucosa for vascular reconstruction in the presence of gastrointestinal contamination.  Ann Surg. 2004;  239 733-738 discussion 738-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Franklin Jr M E, Treviño J M, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass J L, González J J. The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic material for laparoscopic hernia repair in infected and potentially contaminated fields: long-term follow-up.  Surg Endosc. 2008;  22 1941-1946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hodde J. Extracellular matrix as a bioactive material for soft tissue reconstruction.  ANZ J Surg. 2006;  76 1096-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B. Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model.  J Surg Res. 2001;  99 282-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stamilio D M, DeFranco E, Paré E et al.. Short interpregnancy interval: risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  110 1075-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bujold E, Gauthier R J. Risk of uterine rupture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months.  Obstet Gynecol. 2010;  115 1003-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hamar B D, Saber S B, Cackovic M et al.. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  110 808-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Yazicioglu F, Gökdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygün 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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;  85 429-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dodd J M, Anderson E R, Gates S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;  (3) CD004732
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chang Y, Tsai E M, Long C Y, Lee C L, Kay N. Resectoscopic treatment combined with sonohysterographic evaluation of women with postmenstrual bleeding as a result of previous cesarean delivery scar defects.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  200 370, e1-e4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E. Resectoscopic correction of the “isthmocele” in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility.  J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;  15 172-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

John M O'BrienM.D. 

Director, Maternal Fetal Medicine

University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY 40536

Email: john.obrien2@uky.edu

      >