Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Прогностическое значение ультразвукового измерения нижнего сегмента матки при беременности у женщин с рубцом после кесарева сечения: обзор литературы

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Представлен обзор источников литературы, в которых проводилось измерение нижнего сегмента матки у беременных с рубцом на матке с целью прогнозирования разрыва матки. Результаты обзора показали гетерогенность исследований, отсутствие согласованного порога толщины нижнего сегмента, что делает прогнозирование риска разрыва матки на основе измерения нижнего сегмента у женщин с рубцом на матке неопределенным и необоснованным. 

Ключевые слова:
ультразвуковая диагностика, рубец на матке, нижний сегмент, разрыв матки, ultrasound, uterine scar, lower segment, uterine rupture

Литература:
1.Hellerstein S., Feldman S., Duan T. China's 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG. 2015; 122: 160–164. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12971
2.Cui X., Wu S. Ultrasonic assessment has high sensitivity for pregnant women with previous cesarean section occurring uterine dehiscence and rupture: A STARD-compliant article. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99 (31): e21448. http://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000021448
3.Курцер М.А., Бреслав И.Ю., Барыкина О.П., Скрябин Н.В., Нигматуллина Э.Р. Расползание рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2022; 2: 59–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.2.59-64
4.Клинические рекомендации “Послеоперационный рубец на матке, требующий предоставления медицинской помощи матери во время беременности, родов и в послеродовом периоде”. 2024. Российское общество акушеров-гинекологов. https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/schema/635_2? (дата обращения 5.09.2024)
5.MacDorman M., Declercq E., Menacker F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin. Perinatol. 2011; 38 (2): 179–192. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007
6.McMahon M.J., Luther E.R., Bowes W.A. Jr., Olshan A.F. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996; 335 (10): 689–695. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199609053351001
7.Lydon-Rochelle M., Holt V.L., Easterling T.R., Martin D.P. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001; 345 (1): 3–8. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200107053450101.
8.Hofmeyr G.J., Say L., Gulmezoglu A.M. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. BJOG. 2005; 112 (9): 1221–1228. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x
9.Zhao Y., Tu J., Chang Y. et al. Clinical analysis of incomplete rupture of the uterus secondary to previous cesarean section. Open Med. (Wars). 2024; 19 (1): 20240927. http://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-0927
10.Шмаков Р.Г., Баев О.Р., Пекарев О.Г., Пырегов А.В., Карапетян А.О., Приходько А.М. Хирургическая тактика операции кесарева сечения: Учебное пособие. М.: Издательский дом «Бином», 2019. 82 c.
11.Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: ACOG practice bulletin №205 summary. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 133 (2): 393–395. http://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003079
12.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 (4): 321–327. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34475-9
13.Kok N., Wiersma I.C., Opmeer B.C. 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. http://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12479
14.Whiting P., Rutjes A.W., Reitsma J.B. et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2003; 3: 25. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
15.Sharma C., Surya M., Soni A. et al. Sonographic prediction of scar dehiscence in women with previous cesarean section. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2015; 65 (2): 97–103. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-014-0630-4
16.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 (3): 320.e1–e6. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.014
17.Gizzo S., Zambon A., Saccardi C. et al. Effective anatomical and functional status of the lower uterine segment at term: estimating the risk of uterine dehiscence by ultrasound. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99 (2): 496–501. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.10.019
18.Hoffmann J., Exner M., Bremicker K. et al. Comparison of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with and without previous cesarean section in 3T MRI. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19 (1): 160. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2314-7
19.Sen S., Malik S., Salhan S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2004; 87 (3): 215–219. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.07.023
20.Swift B..E., Shah PS., Farine D. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2019; 98 (7): 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13585
21.Marchant I., Lessard L., Bergeron C. et al. Measurement of Lower Uterine Segment Thickness to Detect Uterine Scar Defect: Comparison of Transabdominal and Transvaginal Ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. 2023; 42 (7): 1491–1496. http://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16161
22.Sarwar I., Akram F., Khan A. et al. Validity Of Transabdominal Ultrasound Scan In The Prediction Of Uterine Scar Thickness. J. Ayub. Med. Coll. Abbottabad. 2020; 32 (1): 68–72.
23.Cheung V.Y.T., Constantinescu O.C., Ahluwalia B.S. Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. J. Ultrasound Med. 2004; 23 (11): 1441–1447. https://doi: 10.7863/jum.2004.23.11.1441
24.Kement M., Kement C.E., Kokanali M.K., Doganay M. Prediction of uterine dehiscence via machine learning by using lower uterine segment thickness and clinical features. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022; 2 (4): 100085. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100085
25.Rozenberg P., Senat M.V., Deruelle P. et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment before delivery of women with a prior cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 226 (2): 253. e1–253.e9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.005
26.Савина Л.В., Ящук А.Г., Масленников А.В., Савин А.М. Критерии отбора женщин с рубцом на матке на родоразрешение через естественные родовые пути. В сборнике: Материалы Всеармейской научно-практической конференции, посвященной 180-летию клиники акушерства и гинекологии Военно-медицинской академии им. С.М. Кирова. Санкт-Петербург: Военно-медицинская академия имени С.М. Кирова, 2022: 82–90.
27.Savukyne E., Machtejeviene E., Kliucinskas M., Paskauskas S. Cesarean Scar Thickness Decreases during Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58 (3): 407. http://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030407
28.McLeish S.F., Murchison A.B., Smith D.M. et al. Predicting Uterine Rupture Risk Using Lower Uterine Segment Measurement During Pregnancy with Cesarean History: How Reliable Is It? A Review. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2023; 78 (5): 302–308. http://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000001143
29.Yang H., Zhao Y., Tu J. et al. Clinical analysis of incomplete rupture of the uterus secondary to previous cesarean section. Open Med. (Wars). 2024; 19 (1): 2 0240927. http://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-0927
30.Paquette K., Markey S., Roberge S. et al. First and third trimester uterine scar thickness in women after previous caesarean: A prospective comparative study. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Can. 2019; 41 (1): 59–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.02.020

Prognostic value of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment during pregnancy in women with a scar after cesarean section: literature review

The article presents a review of literature focusing on the measurement of the lower uterine segment in pregnant women with a uterine scar in order to predict the risk of uterine rupture. The results of the review demonstrated heterogeneity among studies and the absence of an agreed threshold for lower segment thickness, which makes predicting the risk of uterine rupture based on lower segment measurements in women with a uterine scar uncertain and unreasonable.

Keywords:
ультразвуковая диагностика, рубец на матке, нижний сегмент, разрыв матки, ultrasound, uterine scar, lower segment, uterine rupture