4.2 Article

New diagnostic criteria and operative strategy for cesarean scar syndrome: Endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by cesarean scar defect

Journal

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 1363-1369

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.12738

Keywords

cesarean scar syndrome; cesarean section; endoscopic repair; infertility; post cesarean scar defect

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: The aimof the present study was to assess the efficacy of endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by post-cesarean scar defect (PCSD). Our investigation focused on the validity of new diagnostic criteria and selection methods. Material and Methods: The subjects were 22 women with secondary infertility due to PCSD with retention of bloody fluid in the uterine cavity. Women with a residual myometrial thickness of >= 2.5 mm and an anteflexed or straight uterus underwent hysteroscopic surgery, while all others underwent laparoscopic repair. Hysteroscopic surgery involved resection and coagulation of scarred areas, whereas laparoscopic surgery involved removal of scarred areas combined with hysteroscopy, followed by resuturing. Results: Fourteen of the 22 women (63.6%) who were followed up for >= 1 year after surgery achieved pregnancy. Pregnancies occurred in all four women (100%) who underwent hysteroscopic surgery and in 10 of the 18 women (55.6%) who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Three out of four women who underwent hysteroscopic surgery had term deliveries. Among the women who underwent laparoscopic surgery, five had term deliveries. No cases of uterine rupture were experienced, and the delivery method was cesarean section in all cases. Conclusion: We propose that infertility associated with PCSD, cesarean scar syndrome, is caused by the retention of bloody fluid in the uterine cavity and scarring. Endoscopic treatment, such as hysteroscopy or laparoscopy, was effective for cesarean scar syndrome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available