Dumont, A., De Bernis, L., Bouvier-olle, M.H., Bréart, G. and the MOMA Study Group (2001) Caesarean Section Rate for Maternal Indication in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. The Lancet, 358, 1328-1333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06414-5

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Ultrasound Evaluation of Caesarean Scar of Prelabour and Labour Caesarean Sections: A Cross Sectional Analytical Study

  AUTHORS: Nisansala Perera, Thiran Dias

  KEYWORDS: Caesarean Section Scar, Residual Myometrial Thickness, Labour

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol.13 No.7, July 31, 2023

  ABSTRACT: Caesarean section is dramatically increased throughout the world in recent years. Rupture of the uterus is a devastating complication in trial of labour following previous Caesarean section. Evidence suggests that the size of the uterine scar and the residual myometrial thickness (RMT) are associated directly with the risk of uterine rupture and risk of dehiscence in subsequent deliveries. Impact of the prelabour and labour Cesarean section on the RMT has not been studied in detail. Objectives: To compare RMT, Caesarean scar defects and to evaluate the elasticity of the Caesarean scar between women who underwent prelabour and labour Caesarean sections. Methods: This was a Cross sectional analytical study. Women who underwent Caesarean section in their first pregnancy were recruited. Sample was stratified to prelabour and labour Caesarean section groups. Transvaginal ultrasound scan was performed six months following the Caesarean section. Dimensions of the uterus, uterine scar defect, RMT and elastosonography of the uterine scar were assessed. Results: A total of 240 postpartum women were analyzed. Uterine niche was detectable in 194 subjects. Prelabour CS group had demonstrated 91.7% (n = 110) scar defects (uterine niche) out of 120 cases and the rate among labour CS group was 70% (n = 84). There was a significant difference in the presence of uterine niche among 2 groups as Prelabour group was found to have more scar defects (p mm (SD 1.2) and 4.99 mm (SD 1.3) respectively and there was no significant difference (t = 0.38, p = 0.71). There was no significant difference between the dimensions of the uterine CS defects of the studied groups. Prelabour CS group had significantly higher Target strain [0.28 vs. 0.24 (t = 2.12, p = 0.04)] and significantly less strain ratio [1.45 vs. 1.55 (t -2.42, p = 0.04)] than labour CS group indicating a better scar in prelabour group. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in RMT and uterine scar defects between prelabour and labour Caesarean section groups. But prelabour Caesarean section scars were less stiff than labour Caesarean section scars. Further studies are warranted to elaborate on the association.