Intrauterine device (IUD) migration in cesarean delivery scar: What to do with the niche?

Cesarean scar defect IUD hysteroscopy laparoscopy niche repair residual myometrium

Journal

Facts, views & vision in ObGyn
ISSN: 2032-0418
Titre abrégé: Facts Views Vis Obgyn
Pays: Belgium
ID NLM: 101578773

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Historique:
entrez: 22 2 2020
pubmed: 23 2 2020
medline: 23 2 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The presence of a niche after cesarean section is a common and mostly asymptomatic finding. However, it can cause symptoms or result in impaired fertility or obstetric complications in following pregnancies. At present there is no uniform consensus on when to treat and which way of repair is most suitable. The aim of this systematic review of literature was to provide an overview of current knowledge about cesarean scar niches and about the modalities of niche repair. On the second of January 2019 Pubmed and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies published until December 2018. Search terms were cesarean scar defect, niche, niche repair. As combination key words `hysteroscopy ´, `laparoscopy ´ and `vaginal repair ´ were used. Eight articles were included in this review. The publications were very heterogeneous. Most of them stated that hysteroscopic niche repair with resection of the lower (and upper) rim is suggested for abnormal uterine bleeding. In symptomatic women who wish to conceive, different authors suggest laparoscopic niche repair with double layer closure to increase myometrial thickness. Also, one report on vaginal repair was included, none of the included patients had child wish. Nothing was reported on residual myometrial thickness after surgery. The current literature is not sufficient to draw strong conclusions on what to do about cesarean scar niches, yet, they justify the role of hysteroscopic as well as laparoscopic niche repair dependent on different pre- operative factors. We conclude that further large randomized controlled trials are necessary.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The presence of a niche after cesarean section is a common and mostly asymptomatic finding. However, it can cause symptoms or result in impaired fertility or obstetric complications in following pregnancies. At present there is no uniform consensus on when to treat and which way of repair is most suitable. The aim of this systematic review of literature was to provide an overview of current knowledge about cesarean scar niches and about the modalities of niche repair.
METHODS METHODS
On the second of January 2019 Pubmed and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies published until December 2018. Search terms were cesarean scar defect, niche, niche repair. As combination key words `hysteroscopy ´, `laparoscopy ´ and `vaginal repair ´ were used.
RESULTS RESULTS
Eight articles were included in this review. The publications were very heterogeneous. Most of them stated that hysteroscopic niche repair with resection of the lower (and upper) rim is suggested for abnormal uterine bleeding. In symptomatic women who wish to conceive, different authors suggest laparoscopic niche repair with double layer closure to increase myometrial thickness. Also, one report on vaginal repair was included, none of the included patients had child wish. Nothing was reported on residual myometrial thickness after surgery.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The current literature is not sufficient to draw strong conclusions on what to do about cesarean scar niches, yet, they justify the role of hysteroscopic as well as laparoscopic niche repair dependent on different pre- operative factors. We conclude that further large randomized controlled trials are necessary.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32082532
pmc: PMC7020949

Types de publication

Case Reports

Langues

eng

Pagination

251-256

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Facts, Views & Vision.

Références

BJOG. 2014 Jan;121(2):145-56
pubmed: 24373589
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 Jan-Feb;12(1):25-8
pubmed: 15904593
BJOG. 2014 Jan;121(2):236-44
pubmed: 24373597
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1995 Jan;14(1):16-20
pubmed: 7883420
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012 Jul-Aug;19(4):454-8
pubmed: 22748951
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Mar-Apr;15(2):172-5
pubmed: 18312986
Fertil Steril. 2017 Jan;107(1):289-296.e2
pubmed: 27816234
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jul;207(1):14-29
pubmed: 22516620
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr;43(4):372-82
pubmed: 23996650
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;24(3):180-6
pubmed: 22395067
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):234-7
pubmed: 21354070
BJOG. 2018 Feb;125(3):317-325
pubmed: 28703935
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Dec;95(12):1352-1358
pubmed: 27617416
J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Oct;20(10):1105-15
pubmed: 11587017
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Feb;22(2):297-301
pubmed: 25285773
BJOG. 2018 Feb;125(3):326-334
pubmed: 28504857
Hum Reprod. 2015 Dec;30(12):2695-702
pubmed: 26409016
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Jan 02;9:4
pubmed: 26724805
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;37(1):93-9
pubmed: 21031351

Auteurs

A Verest (A)

Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Algemeen Ziekenhuis Turnhout, Steenweg op Merksplas 44, 2300 Turnhout, Belgium.

E Borwski (E)

Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Algemeen Ziekenhuis Turnhout, Steenweg op Merksplas 44, 2300 Turnhout, Belgium.
Faculty of medicine, KU Leuven Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.

I Cadron (I)

Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Algemeen Ziekenhuis Turnhout, Steenweg op Merksplas 44, 2300 Turnhout, Belgium.

S Van Calenbergh (S)

Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Algemeen Ziekenhuis Turnhout, Steenweg op Merksplas 44, 2300 Turnhout, Belgium.

R Vanspauwen (R)

Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Algemeen Ziekenhuis Turnhout, Steenweg op Merksplas 44, 2300 Turnhout, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH