剖宫产瘢痕憩室的形成机制及诊断

剖宫产瘢痕憩室（CSD）是剖宫产术后的一个远期并发症。随着剖宫产率持续上升,CSD的发生率随之升高。部分患者因此出现异常子宫出血或剖宫产瘢痕妊娠,甚至发生大出血、孕期子宫破裂、凶险性前置胎盘等严重并发症危及母胎安全。CSD发病机制尚不明确,发生率也无确切数据。CSD的诊断目前国际上仍未形成统一定论。主要是根据病史,临床表现及辅助检查进行临床诊断。影像学检查以及宫腔镜检查已经成为临床上主要的诊断方法与确诊手段。     

剖宫产瘢痕妊娠与瘢痕憩室超声诊断及其临床意义

二孩政策放开后,由于前期高剖宫产率带来的子宫切口瘢痕的远期并发症给临床带来一系列问题。其中剖宫产切口瘢痕憩室和剖宫产切口瘢痕妊娠是最常见的临床问题。文章就这两种异常的超声声像学特征、超声诊断要点及其临床意义进行阐述,旨在提高对两种剖宫产远期并发症的正确认识,提高正确诊断率,以利于指导临床处理。     

剖宫产子宫切口瘢痕缺陷的宫腔镜手术治疗

剖宫产瘢痕憩室(CSD)是剖宫产术后远期并发症之一,CSD实际上是剖宫产子宫切口愈合不良所致,其形成的原因比较复杂。关于CSD有不少认识上的误区,对于没有症状的CSD一般不需要治疗,对于有症状的CSD如何治疗在认识上也比较混乱,如何选择合适的治疗方式不仅关系到医务人员对于CSD的认识也直接影响了CSD的治疗效果。有一种特殊类型的CSD是切口瘢痕下缘存在活瓣作用且由于活瓣作用而阻止了憩室内的经血顺利流出而出现症状(常见为经期延长),同时憩室内的异位子宫内膜也可能与宫腔内在位的内膜生长不同步也导致异常阴道流血,这种特殊的CSD学术界有个专业的名称即剖宫产子宫切口瘢痕缺陷(PCSD)。对于残余子宫壁肌层不是很薄的PCSD,可以采用宫腔镜手术切除活瓣并电凝破坏憩室内异位子宫内膜的治疗方法。而对于没有PCSD特点的CSD,宫腔镜手术的疗效较差,一般不采用宫腔镜手术治疗。文章将深入阐述PCSD的宫腔镜手术治疗的相关问题。     

剖宫产后子宫瘢痕憩室形成因素的研究进展

剖宫产后子宫瘢痕憩室(cesarean scar diverticula,CSD)是继发于剖宫产的一种妇科疾病,指剖宫产术后子宫切口肌层愈合不良,在子宫峡部出现突向浆膜层,并与宫腔相通的一个囊状缺陷,导致异常子宫出血、慢性盆腔痛、瘢痕妊娠、胎盘植入,甚至再次妊娠子宫破裂等严重并发症.目前CSD形成因素尚未完全阐明,可能...     

宫腹腔镜联合手术治疗剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室的临床分析

目的:探讨剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室的原因及宫腹腔镜联合手术治疗的效果。方法:回顾分析2011年9月至2013年6月我院收治的剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室经宫腹腔镜联合手术治疗的15例患者的临床资料。结果:11例患者术前经阴道超声检查发现,4例患者阴道超声检查子宫未见异常,后经盆腔MRI检查提示为剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室。采取经宫腹腔镜联合手术修补子宫切口憩室,未发生与手术相关并发症。术后随访平均3.6月(3~7月),13例患者经期恢复至正常,2例患者术后月经改善不明显,术后复查B超及宫腔镜见仍有子宫小憩室。结论:宫腔镜联合阴道超声、MRI可作为剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室诊断的较佳方法。严格掌握剖宫产的指征、改进缝合技术、预防感染是预防子宫憩室的重要措施。宫腹腔镜联合手术是切除子宫憩室的有效治疗手段。     

超声联合宫腔镜检查子宫异常出血的诊断价值

目的:超声和宫腔镜联合检查诊断子宫异常出血的原因。材料与方法:经腹部超声检查测量子宫内膜厚度,超声和宫腔镜联合检查观察子宫腔内病变并在超声监测下诊断性刮宫。结果:75例患者中,子宫内膜厚度16mm者55例,其中子宫内膜息肉、子宫粘膜下肌瘤以及子宫内膜息肉合并粘膜下肌瘤43例,子宫内膜癌5例,子宫内膜增生7例;子宫内膜16mm者20例,其中子宫内膜息肉3例,宫颈息肉7例。结论:超声检查可以作为子宫异常出血患者的首选检查方法,超声和宫腔镜联合检查可进一步提高病因诊断。     

剖宫产子宫瘢痕憩室诊断和治疗进展

<正>近年来我国较高的剖宫产率导致了很多近远期手术相关问题,这些问题对子宫的影响乃至再次妊娠都带来一定危害,其中剖宫产子宫瘢痕憩室的形成就是我们必须面对的一个重要问题。剖宫产子宫瘢痕憩室又称剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕缺损(previous cesarean scar defect,PCSD),是指子宫下段剖宫产术后的子宫切口处形成一个与宫腔相通的憩室,由于憩室下端瘢痕的活瓣作用阻碍了经血的引流,从而出现一系列临床相关症状[1]。关于     

剖宫产术后子宫切口血肿与子宫瘢痕憩室的相关性

目的探讨剖宫产产后子宫切口血肿与子宫瘢痕憩室的相关性。方法本研究为回顾性研究。研究对象为2020年1月至2021年12月在深圳市龙华区人民医院初次行剖宫产的产妇。以产后发生子宫切口血肿149例作为研究组, 其中血肿致切口分离者为分离组, 未致切口分离者为未分离组。以同期子宫切口处无血肿的病例作为对照组。记录2组子宫切口愈合后子宫瘢痕憩室发生情况, 以及远期愈合情况。采用t或χ2检验进行统计学分析。结果 (1)1 939例中, 149例(7.7%)术后超声检查发现子宫切口血肿者为血肿组。血肿组中, 分离亚组74例, 未分离亚组75例。同期110例初次剖宫产术后的产妇超声检查未发现子宫切口血肿, 作为对照组。(2)共41例(2.1%)形成子宫瘢痕憩室, 均在血肿组, 占该组的27.5%(41/149)。分离亚组子宫瘢痕憩室发生率为52.7%(39/74), 高于未分离亚组的2.7%(2/75)(χ2=35.96, P<0.001)。(3)子宫切口内血肿、切口内+切口后方血肿、子宫切口内+切口前后方血肿致切口分离时, 子宫瘢痕憩室发生率分别为10/18、55.1%(27/49)和2/2...     

宫腔镜治疗剖宫产子宫切口瘢痕缺陷的临床分析

近年,剖宫产率呈逐渐上升趋势,一些大中城市的剖宫产率高达50％,甚至60％一70％[1]。随着剖宫产率的升高,剖宫产子宫切口瘢痕缺陷（previous cesarean scar defect,PCSD）的发生率逐渐增多,约6．9％[2]。PCSD主要表现为月经期延长、经血淋漓不尽、月经增多等,严重影响患者的生活质量。此外,PCSD可引起异常子宫出血、不育不孕及下腹隐痛坠胀不适,甚至可诱发子宫切口处妊娠或再次妊娠子宫破裂,危及患者生命。     

宫、腹腔镜联合手术治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室

目的:探讨剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室应用宫、腹腔镜联合手术治疗的临床效果。方法:选择经彩色多普勒超声诊断子宫瘢痕憩室,有手术指征的患者17例,在全麻下进行宫、腹腔镜联合手术,分离子宫膀胱反折腹膜,切除憩室病灶,重新缝合子宫肌层。结果:17例患者手术顺利,平均手术时间为69.2±28.7(35~110)min,术后临床症状消失,6个月后复查超声肌层连续,肌壁厚度为1.35±0.28(0.8~1.8)cm,与术前的肌壁厚度0.33±0.10(0.17~0.5)cm相比,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:宫、腹腔镜联合手术治疗剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室安全,微创,效果确切。     

宫腹腔镜联合手术与经阴式手术比较治疗剖宫产切口憩室的Meta分析

目的:评价宫腹腔镜联合手术与经阴式手术治疗子宫切口憩室的效果。方法:检索the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)、Pub Med、SCIE、EMbase、CNKI、VIP、万方数据库等数据库,查找宫腹腔镜联合手术与经阴式手术治疗子宫切口憩室的随机对照试验(RCT)相关文献,同时手检纳入文献的参考文献。按纳入排除标准由2名评价员独立进行RCT的筛选、资料提取和质量评估后,采用Rev Man5.1软件进行Meta分析。结果:纳入文献14篇,共884例患者,其中481例行宫腹腔镜联合手术或宫腔镜电切手术或开腹手术(观察组),403例仅行经阴式手术(对照组)。Meta分析显示,与经阴式手术比较,宫腹腔镜联合手术患者的手术时间较长(MD=13.99,95%CI为4.76~23.23,P=0.003),术中出血少(MD=-13.08,95%CI为-22.98~-3.18,P=0.01),住院时间短(MD=-2.10,95%CI为-3.45~-0.75,P=0.002),治疗费用多(SMD=6.93,95%CI为4.50~9.35,P0.00001),术后总并发症发生率低(RR=0.38,95%CI为0.19~0.75,P=0.006),术后阴道出血时间短(MD=-3.16,95%CI为-5.26~-1.05,P=0.003),术后肛门排气时间差异无统计学意义(MD=0.26,95%CI为-0.22~0.75,P=0.29),术后月经恢复情况好(OR=1.89,95%CI为1.11~3.20,P=0.02),术后憩室修复情况好(OR=2.16,95%CI为1.20~3.88,P=0.010)。结论:宫腹腔镜联合手术与经阴式手术治疗子宫切口憩室比较,手术时间较长,治疗费用高,术后肛门排气时间无明显差异,但住院时间短,术后阴道出血时间短,术中出血少,安全性更高;可提高月经恢复情况、憩室修复情况。但原始研究质量均较低,建议临床上审慎选择使用;需更多高质量、大样本研究进一步验证。     

3种手术方式治疗子宫切口憩室的疗效分析

目的:探讨宫腹腔镜联合修补术、阴式修补术和宫腔镜修补术治疗剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室的临床疗效,为临床手术方案的选择提供参考。方法:选择2008年2月至2012年5月在郑州大学第一附属医院收治的因保守治疗失败行手术治疗的剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室患者71例,其中接受宫腹腔镜联合手术治疗38例(宫腹腔镜组),经阴道手术治疗20例(阴式组)及宫腔镜治疗13例(宫腔镜组)。回顾性分析71例患者手术的相关统计指标。结果:宫腹腔镜组、阴式组和宫腔镜组在术中出血量(35.0±17.6 ml、25.0±15.8 ml、10.0±10.2 ml)、手术时间(60.0±12.4分钟、43.0±15.6分钟、20.0±5.6分钟)、术后阴道流血时间(7.9±2.1天、9.5±3.5天、5.5±3.2天)和治疗费(15283.6±756.3元、5269±332.4元、7841.9±965.8元)方面比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.001)。宫腹腔镜组治疗月经改善有效率(97.14%)与阴式组(94.74%)比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),但两组分别与宫腔镜组(63.64%)比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。3组术后妊娠率分别为72.73%(8/11)、60.00%(3/5)、50.00%(2/4),比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:宫腹腔镜、宫腔镜术和阴式修补术均是剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室的有效治疗手段,临床上可根据患者的病情及医者水平制定相应的手术治疗方案。     

The value of hysteroscopic management of cesarean scar pregnancy: a report of 44 cases

Objective

With the incidence of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) rising, the reports of serious adverse outcomes of it have increased gradually. The management of CSP remains an inadequately explored clinical field, and there is no consensus on it presently. The present study was performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of operative hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of CSP.

剖宫产瘢痕憩室腹腔镜手术治疗

剖宫产瘢痕憩室(cesarean scar defect,CSD)是剖宫产术后远期并发症之一,通常由于憩室内经血引流不畅出现相应的临床症状,同时易导致继发性不孕、瘢痕妊娠、子宫破裂等。经阴道超声、宫腔声学造影术、宫腔镜检查等可作为CSD的辅助诊断方法。CSD通常选择手术治疗,包括宫腔镜手术、阴式手术及腹腔镜手术。腹腔镜下瘢痕憩室修复术能从根本上解决子宫下段肌层薄弱问题,改善临床症状,提高生育力,降低远期妊娠子宫破裂等不良结局风险。     

2D versus 3D transabdominal sonography for the measurement of lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous cesarean delivery

Objective

To evaluate the intermethod reliability of using 3D versus 2D transabdominal sonography in the measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in women with previous cesarean delivery, in addition to determining the interobserver reliability of 2D and 3D transabdominal sonography in LUS measurement.

Methods

Between February and July 2010 at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, 40 pregnant women with a history of previous cesarean delivery at 36-39 weeks of pregnancy underwent LUS measurement via 2D and 3D transabdominal sonography by 2 observers. The 3D examination was performed on the multiplanar display of the longitudinally acquired LUS volume. Inner myometrial thickness (MT) and full thickness (FT) were measured at the thinnest portion and perpendicular to the contour of the LUS.

Results

The 2D and 3D LUS measurements obtained by the 2 observers were comparable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: MT, 0.81 and 0.98, respectively; FT, 0.76 and 0.98, respectively). For transabdominal LUS measurement, 2D MT provided the best interobserver reliability (ICC: 2D MT, 0.95; 2D FT, 0.91; 3D MT, 0.82; 3D FT, 0.77).

Conclusion

Compared with the 2D approach, 3D transabdominal sonography does not seem to improve the reliability of LUS measurement. 2D measurement of MT seems to be most reliable between different observers.     

前置胎盘附着位置对剖宫产后再次妊娠母婴结局的影响

目的研究前置胎盘附着位置对剖宫产后再次妊娠母婴结局的影响。 方法回顾性分析2008年6月至2013年6月就诊于中山大学附属第一医院产科剖宫产后再次妊娠合并前置胎盘62例患者临床资料,其中附着于子宫前壁的前置胎盘33例(前壁组),附着于子宫后壁的前置胎盘29例(后壁组),比较两组患者的一般情况、前置胎盘类型、并发症、妊娠结局及新生儿情况。计量资料采用t检验,计数资料采用χ²检验。 结果前壁组与后壁组患者的产前出血率分别为45.5%和17.2%(χ²＝4.554,P＝0.033),产后出血发生率分别为69.7%和13.8%(χ²＝17.348,P<0.001),胎盘粘连发生率分别为48.5%和20.7%(χ²＝4.151,P＝0.042),胎盘植入发生率分别为33.3%和10.3%(χ²＝4.028,P＝0.045),子宫切除率分别为27.3%及0.0%(χ²＝8.434,P＝0.004),弥散性血管内凝血(DIC)发生率分别为27.3%和0.0%(χ²＝8.434,P＝0.004),早产发生率分别为63.6%和27.6%(χ²＝4.464,P＝0.035)。 结论剖宫产后再次妊娠合并前置胎盘中,胎盘附着于前壁者导致产前出血、产后出血、胎盘粘连、胎盘植入、子宫切除、DIC及早产的风险显著增高,分娩前应明确胎盘附着位置。     

二次剖宫产行子宫瘢痕切除术预防剖宫产切口瘢痕憩室效果的临床研究

目的:比较二次剖宫产术中原子宫切口瘢痕切除与否对剖宫产切口瘢痕憩室(PCSD)形成的影响,为临床PCSD的预防提供依据。方法:选取择期二次剖宫产的产妇共360例,其中采用先行原子宫切口瘢痕切除,再双层连续缝合子宫的产妇为研究组,直接行双层连续缝合子宫的产妇为对照组。统计两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后血性恶露持续时间、肛门排气时间、住院天数。术后6月至1年进行随访,评估是否出现异常阴道流血,并在术后1年应用阴道三维超声评估子宫切口愈合情况,分别统计两组产妇形成PCSD的例数,憩室残余子宫肌层厚度及憩室的大小。结果:两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后血性恶露持续时间、肛门排气时间、住院天数差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);研究组与对照组形成PCSD的例数分别为4例(2.2%)、15例(8.3%);憩室残余子宫肌层厚度均值分别为7.35±1.89 mm、4.98±2.03 mm;憩室容积分别为0.36±0.17 ml、0.53±0.13 ml(P0.01)。结论:二次剖宫产术中切除原子宫切口瘢痕更利于切口愈合,减少PCSD的形成,减轻所形成的PCSD的程度。     

Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in pregnant women with previous cesarean section

ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of prenatal sonography (U/S) in determining the lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in women with previous cesarean section (CS) and to assess its usefulness in predicting the risk of uterine rupture during a trial of vaginal birth.DesignProspective controlled study.SettingSuzan Mubarak University Hospital.SubjectsOne hundred and fifty pregnant women with singleton pregnancies, with the gestational age between 37 and 40weeks were recruited for the study during the period from October 2007 to June 2008. The recruited patients were allocated into three equal groups. Group I included those with previous one low transverse CS and with the history of successful VBAC. Group II included those without the history of successful VBAC. Group III included those without the previous history of CS (control group).InterventionsThe recruited patients were subjected to clinical and U/S evaluations. The LUS thickness was evaluated by both transabdominal (TA) and transvaginal (TV) U/S. Women were categorized for the mode of delivery into either trial of VBAC or elective repeated CS (ERCS). All the intraoperative findings were correlated with U/S findings.Main outcome measuresAccuracy of US in predicting uterine dehiscence.ResultsMean LUS thickness was lower among the study groups than in the control group. The present study reported 14 (28%) cases of dehiscent scar. Mean LUS thickness was significantly lower among the dehiscence groups (1.7±0.7mm) than in the non-dehiscence groups (2.6±0.8mm) (P?0.01). At a cutoff value of 2.5mm, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 90.9%, 84%, 71.4%, and 95.5%, respectively, using (TA) U/S and 81.8%, 84%, 69.2%, and 91.3%, respectively, using (TV) U/S. At LUS thickness ?2.5mm, there was a higher risk for dehiscence than those with a thickness of more than 2.5mm.ConclusionsIf the thickness of the LUS is more than 2.5mm, the possibility of dehiscence during the subsequent trials of labor is very small and a safe vaginal delivery can be achieved. Further large studies are recommended.     

Sonographic assessment of post-cesarean section uterine scar in pregnant women

Purpose: To detect location of uterine cesarean scar in relation to cervix in pregnancies with previous cesarean section (CS) and to compare location between elective and emergent previous CS. Study design: Prospective study, 91 pregnant women with previous low transverse CS. Two groups: previous elective [36 (39.6%)] and emergent CS [55 (60.4%)]. Transvaginal ultrasound was performed between 14 and 16 weeks. Cervical length (CL) and distance between external oss to hypoechogenic line (EO-HL distance), which describes location of cesarean scar, were measured. Surgical incision was considered cervical when EO-HL distance was smaller than CL. Results: Mean CL and EO-HL distance: 45.4 + 7. 0 and 39.0 + 9.4?mm, respectively for all patients. No significant differences were observed in CL (45.9 + 6.2 vs. 45.1 + 8.5?mm; p = not significant [NS]) and EO-HL distance (40.7 + 9.7 vs. 37.9 + 9.1?mm; p = NS) between both groups. Sixty-four cases (70.3%) had cervical scar, eight (8.8%) at the level of the internal oss and 19 (20.9) in the lower uterine segment. No significant difference was observed between both groups regarding location of scar (cervix ?72 vs. 67% emergent vs. elective, respectively; p = NS). Conclusion: CS incisions are mostly performed in cervix, in elective as well as in emergent operations.