Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Ultraschall Med 2018; 39(03): 343-351
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-112223

Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Single vs. Double Layer Closure of Hysterotomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery: The Effect on Uterine Scar Thickness

Der Effekt auf die Narbendicke nach einschichtigem oder zweischichtigem Verschluss der Uterotomie bei der Sectio Cesarea: Eine prospektiv randomisierte Studie

Christian Bamberg

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

,

Joachim W. Dudenhausen

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

,

Verena Bujak

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

,

Elke Rodekamp

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

,

Martin Brauer

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

,

Larry Hinkson

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

,

Karim Kalache

²Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology Department, Sidra Medical and Research Center, Doha, Qatar

,

Wolfgang Henrich

¹Department of Obstetrics, Charité-University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany

› Institutsangaben

MedOne

Abstract

Purpose We undertook a randomized clinical trial to examine the outcome of a single vs. a double layer uterine closure using ultrasound to assess uterine scar thickness.

Materials and Methods Participating women were allocated to one of three uterotomy suture techniques: continuous single layer unlocked suturing, continuous locked single layer suturing, or double layer suturing. Transvaginal ultrasound of uterine scar thickness was performed 6 weeks and 6 – 24 months after Cesarean delivery. Sonographers were blinded to the closure technique.

Results An “intent-to-treat” and “as treated” ANOVA analysis included 435 patients (n = 149 single layer unlocked suturing, n = 157 single layer locked suturing, and n = 129 double layer suturing). 6 weeks postpartum, the median scar thickness did not differ among the three groups: 10.0 (8.5 – 12.3 mm) single layer unlocked vs. 10.1 (8.2 – 12.7 mm) single layer locked vs. 10.8 (8.1 – 12.8 mm) double layer; (p = 0.84). At the time of the second follow-up, the uterine scar was not significantly (p = 0.06) thicker if the uterus had been closed with a double layer closure 7.3 (5.7 – 9.1 mm), compared to single layer unlocked 6.4 (5.0 – 8.8 mm) or locked suturing techniques 6.8 (5.2 – 8.7 mm). Women who underwent primary or elective Cesarean delivery showed a significantly (p = 0.03, p = 0.02, “as treated”) increased median scar thickness after double layer closure vs. single layer unlocked suture.

Conclusion A double layer closure of the hysterotomy is associated with a thicker myometrium scar only in primary or elective Cesarean delivery patients.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel In der prospektiv randomisierten Studie wurde die Uterotomienarbe mittels transvaginalen Ultraschalls nach ein- oder zweischichtiger Verschlusstechnik bei der Sectio Cesarea beurteilt.

Material und Methoden Die Uterotomie wurde entweder einfach fortlaufend oder fortlaufend durchschlungen, überwendlich oder zweischichtig verschlossen. Die transvaginale Messung der Narbendicke erfolgte nach 6 Wochen und 6 – 24 Monate postpartum, wobei die Untersucher für die Nahtform verblindet waren.

Ergebnisse In die „Intention-to-treat“ und „As treated“ ANOVA Analyse wurden 435 Patientinnen eingeschlossen (n = 149 einfach fortlaufender Verschluss der Uterotomie, n = 157 fortlaufend durchschlungen überwendliche Naht, n = 129 doppelte Verschlusstechnik). Sechs Wochen postpartum war die mediane Narbendicke in allen drei Gruppen nicht signifikant unterschiedlich (p = 0,84); 10,0 (8,5 – 12,3 mm) einfach fortlaufende Naht vs. 10,1 (8,2 – 12,7 mm) fortlaufend durchschlungen überwendliche Naht vs 10,8 (8,1 – 12,8 mm) doppelte Naht. Beim zweiten Follow-up war die Uterotomienarbe nicht signifikant unterschiedlich (p = 0,06); nach einer doppelten Naht 7,3 (5,7 – 9,1 mm), im Vergleich zur einfach fortlaufenden Naht 6,4 (5,0 – 8,8 mm) oder fortlaufend durchschlungen überwendlichen Naht 6,8 (5,2 – 8,7 mm). Ausschließlich Schwangere, die ihren ersten oder elektiven Kaiserschnitt erhielten, zeigten eine signifikant (p = 0,03, p = 0,02, „As treated“) dickere Uterotomienarbe nach doppelter Naht im Vergleich zu Frauen nach einfach fortlaufender Naht.

Schlussfolgerung In unserem Studienkollektiv war die doppelte Naht im Vergleich zur einfach fortlaufenden Naht der Uterotomie nur bei Erstsectiones und elektiven Eingriffen mit einer signifikant dickeren Narbe assoziiert.

Key words

Key words

uterus - ultrasound - obstetrics - pregnancy - surgery

References
1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Pressemitteilung 23.10.2013. 2013
2 Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA. et al. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 331.e1-331.e19
3 Holmgren G, Sjoholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 615-621
4 Stark M, Chavkin Y, Kupfersztain C. et al. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995; 48: 273-276
5 Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A. et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 115: 5-10
6 Tucker JM, Hauth JC, Hodgkins P. et al. Trial of labor after a one- or two-layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 545-546
7 Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF. et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 1326-1330
8 Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C. et al. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 1199-1202
9 Shipp TD, Lieberman E. Impact of single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 601 ; author reply 601–602
10 Vidaeff AC, Lucas MJ. Impact of single-or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 602-603 ; author reply 603
11 Hamar BD, Saber SB, 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
12 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
13 Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section. BJOG 2010; 117: 1119-1126
14 Koutsougeras G, Karamanidis D, Chimonis G. et al. Evaluation during early puerperium of the low transverse incision after cesarean section through vaginal ultrasonography. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2003; 30: 245-247
15 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
16 Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ. et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 252-259
17 Glavind J, Madsen LD, Uldbjerg N. et al. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 207-212
18 Ceci O, Scioscia M, Bettocchi S. et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 452 ; author reply 452
19 Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31-34
20 Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V. et al. 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
21 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
22 Sevket O, Ates S, Molla T. et al. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 125: 219-222
23 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
24 Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 1108-1111
25 Jelsema RD, Wittingen JA, Vander Kolk KJ. Continuous, nonlocking, single-layer repair of the low transverse uterine incision. J Reprod Med 1993; 38: 393-396
26 Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010; 117: 1366-1376
27 Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P. et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 234-248
28 Cruikshank DP. The impact of a single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 295-296 ; author reply 296

Zusatzmaterial

Ergänzendes Material