Verbessert die Diagnostik des unteren Uterinsegments die Geburtsplanung bei Status nach Sectio?

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Bei Patientinnen mit Status nach Sectio ist die sonografische Diagnostik des unteren Uterinsegments (uUS) weit verbreitet. Ihr Nutzen für die Geburtsplanung ist jedoch nicht ausreichend belegt. Es gibt weder ein einheitliches Untersuchungsprotokoll noch einen sicheren Cut-off-Wert. Ziel dieser Studie war es, den Wert der uUS-Diagnostik in der klinischen Routine zu prüfen.

Material und Methoden In die retrospektive Analyse wurden 631 Patientinnen mit Status nach Sectio eingeschlossen. Bei 399 (63%) Patientinnen war eine sonografische Dickenmessung des Myometriums (muUS) und/oder des gesamten uUS (guUS)) erfolgt. Die Inzidenz von Uterusdefekten sowie der Zeitpunkt und die Modalität ihrer Diagnostik wurden eruiert. Sensitivitäten, Spezifitäten, positive (PPV) und negative prädiktive Werte (NPV) wurden für verschiedene Cut-offs errechnet.

Ergebnisse Uterusdefekte traten bei 28 (4,4%) Patientinnen auf. Die Detektionsrate für die Sonografie war gering (13,6%), die Sensitivität/ Spezifität/ PPV/ NPV für niedrigere Cut-off-Werte (2 mm (guUS)/ 1 mm (muUS): 75/96/48,3/98,7%) jedoch besser als für höhere (3 mm (guUS)/ 2 mm (muUS): 15,8/93,2/10,4/68,7%).

Diskussion Der Nutzen der sonografischen uUS-Diagnostik erscheint überschätzt. Da ihre Genauigkeit von zahlreichen methodischen Faktoren beeinflusst wird, könnte sie durch ein einheitliches Protokoll mit einem transabdominellen und transvaginalen Scan durch einen erfahrenen Untersucher verbessert werden. Ein geeigneteres Untersuchungsziel für die Selektion nach Sectio könnte der Ausschluss von Uterusdefekten sein.

Abstract

Introduction Lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness measurement is frequently used to select patients for trial of labor after a previous cesarean section (TOLAC). To date no significant benefit of LUS measurement has ever been proven, and no standard protocol or clear cut-off value exists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit of LUS measurement in a daily routine setting.

Material and Methods In this retrospective study, we evaluated 631 pregnancies after previous cesarean section (CS). Ultrasound measurements of myometrial (mLUS) and/or full LUS (fLUS) thickness were performed in 399 (63%) patients. The incidence, time, and mode of detection of uterine defects were studied. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for different cut-off values of LUS thickness.

Results Uterine defects were diagnosed in 28 (4.4%) patients. Detection rate of ultrasound was low (13.6%), with better sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at lower (2 mm (fLUS) / 1 mm (mLUS): 75/96/48.3/98.7%) than at higher cut-off values (3 mm (fLUS) / 2 mm (mLUS): 15.8/93.2/10.4/68.7%).

Discussion The benefit of LUS thickness measurement appears overestimated. As a large number of methodological factors trigger inaccuracy, a consistent protocol including both a transabdominal and a transvaginal scan performed by a trained examiner might improve accuracy. Exclusion of uterine defects might be more useful for prenatal selection after CS.

Schlüsselwörter

Kaiserschnitt - Schwangerschaft - Ultraschall - Uterus - unteres Uterinsegment

Key words

caesarean section - pregnancy - ultrasound - uterus - lower uterine segment

• Literatur

• 1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Krankenhausentbindungen per Kaiserschnitt im Jahr. 2017 Im Internet: www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/09/PD18_349_231.html
• 2 Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N. et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries. A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health 2015; 3: e260-e270. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
• 3 Barčaitė E, Kemeklienė G, Railaitė DR. et al. Cesarean section rates in Lithuania using Robson Ten Group Classification System. Medicina (Kaunas) 2015; 51: 280-285. doi:10.1016/j.medici.2015.09.001
• 4 McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA. et al. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 689-695. doi:10.1056/NEJM199609053351001
• 5 Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ. et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2581-2589. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa040405
• 6 Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA. et al. The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 54-57 doi:10.1056/NEJM199901073400112
• 7 Guise J-M, Denman MA, Emeis C. et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean. New insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1267-1278. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f
• 8 Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS. et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007; 176: 455-460 doi:10.1503/cmaj.060870
• 9 Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ. et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1226-1232. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.84
• 10 Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation. Twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1458-1461 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.074
• 11 Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY. et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1016-1023. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.066
• 12 Mercer BM, Gilbert S, Landon MB. et al. Labor outcomes with increasing number of prior vaginal births after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 285-291. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816102b9
• 13 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. Leitlinien, Empfehlungen, Stellungnahmen (Stand August 2010): Schwangerenbetreuung und Geburtseinleitung bei Zustand nach Kaiserschnitt
• 14 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ. et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347: 281-284
• 15 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ. et al. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999; 87: 39-45
• 16 Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC. et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 132-139. doi:10.1002/uog.12479
• 17 Cheung Vincent YT, Constantinescu OC, Ahluwalia BS. Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 1441-1447
• 18 Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R. et al. Inter- and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 420-424. doi:10.1002/uog.2718
• 19 Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FMP. et al. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 301-306. doi:10.1002/uog.6224
• 20 Laflamme S-MB, Jastrow N, Girard M. et al. Pitfall in ultrasound evaluation of uterine scar from prior preterm cesarean section. AJP Rep 2011; 1: 65-68 doi:10.1055/s-0031-1284222
• 21 Hoffmann J. Magnetic resonance imaging can be useful for advanced diagnostic of the lower uterine segment in patients after previous cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;
• 22 Valentin L. Prediction of scar integrity and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27: 285-295. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.003
• 23 Jastrow N, Demers S, Chaillet N. et al. Lower uterine segment thickness to prevent uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcomes: a multicenter prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215: 604.e1-604.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.018
• 24 Jastrow N, Vikhareva O, Gauthier RJ. et al. Can third-trimester assessment of uterine scar in women with prior Cesarean section predict uterine rupture?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 410-414. doi:10.1002/uog.15786
• 25 Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S. et al. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: A systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 321-327
• 26 Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J. et al. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 320.e1-6 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.014
• 27 Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Patel S. et al. Rupture of the uterine scar during term labour: contractility or biochemistry?. BJOG 2005; 112: 38-42. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00300.x
• 28 Seliger G, Chaoui K, Lautenschläger C. et al. Ultrasound elastography of the lower uterine segment in women with a previous cesarean section. Comparison of in-/ex-vivo elastography versus tensile-stress-strain-rupture analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 225: 172-180. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.04.013
• 29 Paquette K, Markey S, Roberge S. et al. First and Third Trimester Uterine Scar Thickness in Women With Previous Caesarean. A Prospective Comparative Study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;
• 30 Yoshizato T, Kimura I, Araki R. et al. Age-related changes in thickness of anterior lower uterine segment in normal singleton pregnancy during 20-35 weeks’ gestation. J Med Ultrason 2001; 2016 43: 401-405. doi:10.1007/s10396-016-0709-x
• 31 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. doi:10.1002/uog.6395
• 32 Hoffmann J, Exner M, Bremicker K. et al. Cesarean section scar in 3 T magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. Image characteristics and comparison of the methods. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018; 197: 495.e1. doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4988-x