Modern aspects of childbirth in patients with a uterine scar from cesarean section (literature review)
https://doi.org/10.69964/BMCC-2025-2-4-19-29
Abstract
Introduction. The literature review presents modern views on childbirth in patients with a uterine scar from a cesarean section. Thus, in Russia, the frequency of cesarean sections averages 15-16%, reaching 30-40% in perinatal centers.
Objective. To summarize the literature on optimizing childbirth in patients with a uterine scar.
Materials and methods. The review includes published data for the past 10 years. The literature search was conducted in the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Wiley and Cochrane Library databases.
Results. The most common indications for planned cesarean section are: the presence of a uterine scar, breech presentation of the fetus, anatomically narrow pelvis, intrauterine fetal hypoxia, etc. A possible way to reduce the incidence of cesarean sections is to increase the frequency of spontaneous labor in patients with a uterine scar.
Conclusion. An analysis of literature data has shown that the experience accumulated over the past years substantiates the possibility of performing a certain contingent of women with a uterine scar, safe for both the mother and the fetus. Thus, the uncontrolled growth in the number of women with a uterine scar after CS, the versatility and ambiguity of the solution to the main issues of this problem dictate the need to continue research in this area.
About the Authors
V. F. Nesterov
Federal State Budgetary Institution “Ural Research Institute for Maternity and Infancy Protection” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vitaly F. Nesterov - Candidate of Medical Sciences, senior researcher, head of the obstetric department
st. Repina, 1, Ekaterinburg, 620028
Phone: +7 (343) 371-42-93; +7 (912) 246-02-60
G. B. Malgina
Federal State Budgetary Institution “Ural Research Institute for Maternity and Infancy Protection” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Galina B. Malgina - MD, Ph D, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Academic Secretary, Leading Researcher
st. Repina, 1, Ekaterinburg, 620028
Phone: +7 (343) 371-08-78
References
1. Baev O.R. Reasons for the Increase and Ways to Reduce the Frequency of Cesarean Sections in Modern Obstetrics. Annals of the Russian academy of medical sciences.2024;79(5):385-392. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15690/vramn17966
2. Ailamazyan E.K., Kuzminykh T.U. Evolution of views on operative delivery. Journal of obstetrics and women’s diseases. 2022;71(6):97-105. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17816/JOWD119829
3. Boerma T., Ronsmans C., Melesse D.Y., et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Review. Lancet. 2018; 392 (10 155): 1341–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7
4. Filippov OS, Pavlov KD. Results of the analysis of the frequency and causes of caesarean section based on Robson’s classification in obstetric hospitals of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2023;23(5):7‑12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush2023230517
5. Lebedenko E.Yu., Bespalaya A.V., Feoktistova T.E., Rymashevskiy M.A. Analysis of global trends in caesarean section rates using the Robson classification. Medical Herald of the South of Russia. 2021;12(2):16-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2219-8075-2021-12-2-16-21
6. Martynov S.A., Adamyan L.V. Cesarean scar defect: terminological aspects. Gynecology. 2020; 22(5):70-75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26442/20795696.2020.5.200415
7. Shchukina NA, Buianova SN, Chechneva MA, Zemskova NIu, Barinova IV, Puchkova NV, Blagina EI. Main reasons for the formation of an incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2018;18(4):57‑61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush201818457
8. Grantz K.L., Gonzalez-Quintero V., Troendle J., Reddy U.M., Hinkle S.N., Kominiarek M.A., et al. Labor patterns in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean with normal neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(2):226.e1-6.
9. Clinical management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. ACOG PRACTICE BULLETIN. Number 184, November 2017
10. Vuchenovich Yu.D., Olenev A.S., Novikova V.A., Radzinsky V.E. Cesarean section: border risks and safety. Obstetrics and Gynecology: News, Opinions, Training. 2019; 7 (3): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.24411/2303-9698-2019-13014 (in Russ.)
11. Guriev D.L., Trokhanova O.V., Gurieva M.S., Abdullaeva Kh.G., Kabanov I.V., Gurieva D.D. Applying of Robson classification for the analysis of the work obstetary hospital 3 level and searching for ways to reduce frequency of the caesarean section. Mother and child in Kuzbass. 2018; 4: 70–74. (In Russ.)
12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116:450–63.
13. Barinov SV, Bindyuk AV, Ralko VV, Grebenyuk OA, Ilyinykh IM, Novikov DG. Prediction of vaginal delivery in pregnant women with a uterine scar. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2016;16(1):51‑56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush201616151-56
14. Krasnopol’skiĭ VI, Buianova SN, Shchukina NA, Logutova LS. Uterine suture ( scar) incompetence after cesarean section: Problems and solutions ( an editorial). Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015;15(3):4‑8. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20151534-8
15. Levakov S.A., Borovkova E.I., Gabitova N.A. Delivery of patients with a scar on the uterus after cesarean section. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;7:5-8. (In Russ.)
16. Hakim H, Derbel M, Mtibaa H, Akrout B, Trigui K, Chaker F, Khanfir F, Chaabane K. Risk factors for uterine dehiscence and rupture in case of vaginal birth after cesarean section. Tunis Med.2024;5:102(10):672-676. doi: https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i10.5015
17. Tesfahun TD, Awoke AM, Kefale MM, Balcha WF, Nega AT, Gezahegn TW, Alemayehu BA, Dabalo ML, Bogale TW, Azene Z, Nigatu S, Beyene A. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after one lower uterine transverse cesarean section delivery. Sci Rep. 2023; 31;13(1):8871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36027-1
18. Nahum-Yerushalmy A, Walfisch A, Lipschuetz M, Rosenbloom JI, Kabiri D, Hochler H. Uterine rupture risk in a trial of labor after cesarean section with and without previous vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022; 305(6):1633-1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06368-1
19. Chen, Y., Han, P., Wang, YJ. et al. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 296: 355–361 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4417-6
20. Deshmukh U, Denoble AE, Son M. Trial of labor after cesarean, vaginal birth after cesarean, and the risk of uterine rupture: an expert review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3):783-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.10.030
21. Dellino M, Crupano FM, He X, Malvasi A, Vimercati A. Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section with hysterotomy above the lower uterine segment. Acta Biomed. 2022 ;21(93):e2022269. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v93iS1.12872
22. Kan N.E., Tyutyunnik V.L., Demura T.A., Kesova M.I. Features of the formation of a scar on the uterus after cesarean section in undifferentiated connective tissue dysplasia. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;2: 13-19 (In Russ.)
23. Okulova EO, Mikhelson AA, Melkozerova OA, Telyakova MI, Chistyakova GN, Lazukina MV. Endometriosis of a post-cesarean incompetent of uterine scar: inflammatory or connective tissue dysplasia. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2022;28(4):145‑150. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/repro202228041145
24. Savina L.V., Yashchuk A.G., Maslennikov A.V., Savin A.M., Shayahmetov A.M. Risk factors of uterus scar insolvency after a c-section operation Review article. International Research Journal. 2022; 6 (120): 107-112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.120.6.050
25. Glukhova V.E., Svyazhin A.V. Chronic endometritis and incompetent uterine scar after cesarean section. Remote results of metroplasty. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 2: 126-34. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.2.126-134
26. Enkova EV, Atyakshin DA, Vukolova VA, et al. Forecasting a uterine scar failure through the assessment of mast cells. Research Results in Biomedicine. 2019;5(2):86-95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18413/2658-6533-2019-5-2-0-9
27. Barinov S.V. The problem of the untenableness of the uterine scar after cesarean section.Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk State Medical University.2023; 3(1):18-30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.61634/2782-3024-2023-9-18-3028
28. Mudrov V.A., Mochalova M.N., Mudrov A.A. Features of women’s vaginal delivery with uterine scar at present stage. Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases. 2018; 67(1): 26-37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17816/JOWD67126-37
29. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, de Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. 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 in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013; 42(2): 132-139.
30. Barinov SV, Bindyuk AV, Ralko VV, Grebenyuk OA, Ilyinykh IM. On delivery in pregnant women with a uterine scar. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015;15(4):29‑33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush201515429-33
31. Chaillet N., Bujold E., Masse B. et al.; PRISMA Trial Research Group. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Québec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:434. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2150-x
32. Rozenberg P., Deruelle P., Sénat M-V, Desbrière R, Winer N, Simon E, Ville Y, Kayem G, Boutron I. Lower Uterine Segment Trial: A pragmatic open multicenter randomized trial. [Article in French. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018;46(4):427-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2018.03.005
33. Tang X., Wang J., Du Y., Xie M. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. European Journal of obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019;242(9):240-245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.09.001
34. Wang L. L., Chen J. Y., Yang H. X., Fan L. X., Zhang X. X., Jing B. H., Huang R. N., Li С. Correlation between uterine scars during pregnancy and uterine rupture in pregnant women who are pregnant again after cesarean section. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.2019;54(6):375-80. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2019.06.004
35. Singh N., Tripathi R., Mala Y.M., Dixit R. Scar thickness measurement by transvaginal sonography in late second trimester and third trimester in pregnant patients with previous cesarean section: does sequential change in scar thickness with gestational age correlate with mode of delivery?. Journal of Ultrasound J Ultrasound. 2015;18: 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-014-0116-3
36. Hofmann J., Exner M., Bremicker K., Grothof M., Stumpp P., Schrey‑Petersen S., Stepan H. Cesarean section scar in 3 T magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound: image characteristics and comparison of the methods. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(2):439-449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4988-x
37. Babich D.A., Baev O.R., Fedotkina E.P., Gus A.I. Diagnostic capabilities of echoelastography in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 7: 5-12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.7.5-1
38. Wozniak S., Szkodziak P.R., Czuczwar P. et al. Elastographic evaluation of Caesarean section uterine scar may be useful in identifying patients with high risk of uterine scar dehiscence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 44(1): 336. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14495
39. Yusupov K.F., Nedopekina E.V., Vikhareva O.N. Use of elastography in obstetric and gynecologic practice. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; (11): 22-7. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2016.11.22-7
40. Lu J., Cheng YKY, Ho SYS, Sahota DS, Hui L, Poon LC, Leung TY. The predictive value of cervical shear wave elastography in the outcome of labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(1):59-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13706
41. Prikhodko A.M., Baev O.R., Lunkov S.S., Eremina O.V., Gus A.I. Echographic and elastographic characteristics of the state of the uterus depending on the technique of restoring its integrity during cesarean section. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 1: 48-54. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2016.1.48-54
42. Clinical guidelines «Postoperative scar on the uterus requiring medical care for the mother during pregnancy, childbirth and in the postpartum period» (approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2024) (In Russ.) https://base.garant.ru/409632295/ (date of access 02.08.2025)
43. Gustovarova T.A., Shifman E.M., Vinogradov V.L. Epidural analgesia and labors in women with a uterine scar: what is the degree of risk? V F Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology . 2017;4(4):220-224 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18821/2313-8726-2017-4-4-220-224
44. Stenson D., Wallstrom T., Sjostrand M., Akerud H., Gemzell-Danielsson K., Wiberg-Itzel E. Induction of labor in women with a uterine scar. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 ;29(20):3286-91. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1123242
45. Sidorov A.E., Gunin A.G., Chernyshov V.V. Longterm risks of cesarean delivery: cesarean scar pregnancy. A systematic review. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2017;11(4):48-56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2017.11.4.048-056
46. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 ;133(2):110-127. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078
47. Dinglas C., Rafael T.J., Vintzileos A. Is manual palpation of the uterine scar following vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) helpful? Maternal Fetal Neonatal Medicine. 2015; 28(7): 839–41. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.935326
Review
For citations:
Nesterov V.F., Malgina G.B. Modern aspects of childbirth in patients with a uterine scar from cesarean section (literature review). Bulletin of maternal and child care. 2025;2(4):19-29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.69964/BMCC-2025-2-4-19-29
Views:
9
Email this article 