Volume : 08, Issue : 06, June – 2021
Title:
13.FREQUENCY OF POST CESAREAN SECTION COMPLICATIONS ON ULTRASONOGRAPHY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Authors :
Mr. Amjad Ali Khan, Dr. Sayeda Khadija-Ul-Sughra Maryam, Miss. Irum Raheem
Abstract :
Background: Cesarean delivery – also known as C-section or cesarean section – is the surgical delivery of a baby. It involves one incision in the mother’s abdomen and another in the uterus. 95% of women who underwent C-section have higher chances of miscarriage (report in journal NIHR). Objective: To revise the current literature about the frequency of post C-section complications incidentally found on ultrasound and the accuracy and efficacy of ultrasound in such cases. Methods: An electronic database search was performed (Google Scholar, PubMed, science direct) with the data range 1985- 2020. All studies fully available in English, assessing the complications of Csection sonographically. Results: sixteen articles were found regarding post cesarean section complications on the gray-scale and color Doppler transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound imaging. It has been estimated that women who delivered through Csection were 80% more likely to have complications than those who delivered vaginally. Conclusion: All the possible complications re-evaluated. Ultrasound is the modality of choice due to its low cost, quick and non-invasive nature. Post Csection complications can be evaluated by using trans-vaginal ultrasonography due to its higher sensitivity in detecting infections, fluids, hematoma or any other masses. Keyword Ultrasound examination, post C-section, complication
Cite This Article:
Please cite this article in press Amjad Ali Khan et al., Frequency of Post Cesarean Section Complications On Ultrasonography: A Systematic Review.., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(06).
Number of Downloads : 10
References:
1. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;193(5):1607-17. [PubMed: 16260200 ]
2. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118(1):29-38. [PMC free article: PMC3751192] [PubMed: 21646928]
3. Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang CC, Driggers RW, Laughon SK. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul;122(1):33-40. [PMC free article: PMC3713634] [PubMed: 23743454]
4. NICE. Caesarean section. CG132. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011, updated 2012.
5. Faustin D, Minkoff H, Schaffer R, Crombleholme W, Schwarz R. Relationship of ultrasound findings after cesarean section to operative morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66: 195–198.
6. Khalife S, Falcone T, Hemmings R, Cohen D. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound in detecting free pelvic fluid. J Reprod Med 1998; 43: 795–798.
7. Nichols JE, Steinkampf MP. Detection of free peritoneal fluid by transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 1993; 21: 171–174
8. E. Dosedla1, P. Calda21III. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Slovak Medical University, 1st Private Hospital Kosice- ˇ Saca Inc., Kosice- ˇ Saca, Slovakia; ˇ 2Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Charles University, 1st Faculty of Medicine,Prague, Czech Republic
9. Rodgers SK, Kirby CL, Smith RJ, Horrow MM. Imaging after cesarean delivery: acute and chronic complications. Radiographics 2012;32(6):16931712.doi:10.1148/rg.326125 516. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Nielsen TF, Hökegård KH. Postoperative cesarean section morbidity: a prospective study. AmJObstetGynecol. 1983;146(8):911– 916.doi:10.1016/0002-9378(83)90963- 8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Diane M. Twickler Michael J. Lucas Amy Brown Balis Rigoberto Santos‐Ramos Lisa Martin Shirley Malone Beverly Rogers First published: 15 February 2001.
12. Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, et al. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:289–92.
13. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:75–83
14. Vikhareva Osser, Olga MD; Valentin, Lil MD, PhD Obstetrics & Gynecology: March 2011 – Volume 117 – Issue 3 – p 525-532 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209abf0
15. Mark E. Baker Jarnes D. Bowie Allen P (1985) Sonography of Post-Cesarean-Section Bladder-Flap Hematoma. AJR 144:757-759 (PMID: 3883710)
16. Di Salvo DN (2003) Sonographic Imaging of Maternal Complications of Pregnancy. J UltrasoundMed 22:69–89 (PMID: 12523613)
17. Nagayama M, Watanabe Y, Okumura A, Amoh Y, Nakashita S, Dodo Y Fast MR Imaging in Obstetrics. Radiographics 22:563–582 (PMID: 12006687)
18. Nirula R, Greaney GC. Incisional endometriosis: an underappreciated diagnosis in general surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:404-407.[PubMed].
19. Francica G, Giardiello C, Angelone G, Cristiano S, Finelli R, Tramontano G. Abdominal wall endometriomas near cesarean delivery scars: sonographic and color doppler findings in a series of 12 patients. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:1041- 1047. [PubMed]
20. Hensen JH, Van Breda Vriesman AC, Puylaert JB. Abdominal wall endometriosis: clinical presentation and imaging features with emphasis on sonography.AJRAmJRoentgenol. 2006;186:6 16-620. [PubMed] [DOI]
21. Savelli L, Manuzzi L, Donato ND, Salfi N, Trivella G, Ceccaroni M, Seracchioli R. Endometriosis of the abdominal wall: ultrasonographic and doppler characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:336- 340. [PubMed] [DOI].
22. Salim R, Kadan Y, Nachum Z, Edelstein S, Shalev E. Abdominal scar characteristics as a predictor of intra‐abdominal adhesions at repeat cesarean delivery. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 2324– 2327. Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
23. Hudelist G, Fritzer N, Staettner S, Tammaa A, Tinelli A, Sparic R, Keckstein J. Uterine sliding sign: a simple sonographic predictor for presence of deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 692– 695.Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
24. Eisenkop SM, Richman R, Platt LD, Paul RH. Urinary tract injury during Cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 591–596.
25. Buchholz NP, Daly-Grandeau E, HuberBuchholz MM. Urological complications associated with Caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 56: 161– 163
26. Ramamurthy S, Vijayan P, Rajendran S. Sonographic diagnosis of a uterovesical fistula. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21: 817–819
27. EricJauniaux 1 , AmarBhide 2Affiliations e xpandPMID: 28268196DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo g.2017.02.050.
IMAGE REFERENCES:
28. Shuchi K, Radgers, MD. et al. imaging after cesarean section delivery: Acute andchroniccomplications/2012;32:1691- 1721/doi:10.1148/rg.326125516.