Abstract：Objective To analyze the risk factors for previous cesarean scar defect.Methods Totally 128 patients who had received cesarean section were recruited in the study. Fifty-six of the cases came to visit a doctor because of previous cesarean scar defect between January 2013 and December 2015, while the other seventy-two cases had their scars healed under the vaginal ultrasound and with no symptoms related to previous cesarean scar defect .The medical records included general conditions(age, uterine position, gestational age, gravidity and parity history and neonatal weight) and perioperative conditions (pregnancy complications, puerperal infection, time of operation, and ways of incision suture) were collected. Risk factors for previous cesarean scar defect were analyzed.Results There were more cases of retroflexed uterus, delivery, cesarean sections, patients with gestational diabetes mellitus, cesarean sections during the second stage of labor, and more cases of single layer closure incision (P<0.05) in the group with previous cesarean scar defect. The risk factors for previous cesarean scar defect were the retroflexed uterus(OR=0.370, P<0.05), multiple cesarean sections(OR=0.147, P<0.01), cesarean sections during the second stage of labor (OR=0.543, P<0.05), and incisions with single layer closure(OR=11.126, P<0.05).Conclusions Rigorous control of indications, proper timing of cesarean sections, and improving surgical expertise are effective means of reducing the risk of previous cesarean scar defect.
王静璇, 卢丹, 魏薇. 剖宫产切口憩室发病危险因素探讨[J]. 武警医学, 2017, 28(3): 265-267.
WANG Jingxuan, LU Dan, and WEI Wei. Analysis of risk factors for previous cesarean scar defect. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2017, 28(3): 265-267.
Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section [J]. BJOG: An Inter J Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2010, 117(9):1119-1126.
Vikhareva Osser O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination [J]. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2009,34(1):90-97.
Tower A M, Frishman G N. Cesarean Scar Defects: An Underrecognized Cause of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Other Gynecologic Complications [J]. J Minim Invasive Gyneco, 2013, 20(5):562-572.
[6]
Voet L F, Bij De Vaate A M, Veersema S, et al. Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding [J]. BJOG: An Inter J Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2014, 121(2):236-244.
[7]
Bij D A, Voet L F, Naji O, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 43(4):372-382.
Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, et al. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 211(5):453-460.
[10]
Lin Y H, Hwang J L, Seow K M. Endometrial ablation as a treatment for postmenstrual bleeding due to cesarean scar defect [J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2010, 111(1):88-89.
[11]
Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2012, 19(4):454-458.
[12]
Wang C B, Chiu W W C, Lee C Y, et al. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position [J]. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2009, 34(1):85-89.
2017, Vol. 28 
