Single Versus Double Layer Uterine Closure Technique According to Development of Uterine Niche: A Literature Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
Prevalence of cesarean deliveries increases globally. The prevalence of cesarean births increased from 5% in 1970 to 31.9% in 2016. There are short term and long-term complications of cesarean delivery including uterine niche. After a cesarean, the uterus is closed using a variety of methods, such as single- and double-layer closures with/without locking. This study compared single-layer and double-layer uterine closure with regard to the outcomes and complications. This review was synthesized and obtained from various online databases. Scientific articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. The result showed that cesarean deliveries is a hysterotomy and an open abdominal incision (laparotomy) to deliver the fetus. An iatrogenic pouch-like defect known as a uterine niche result from improper tissue repair at the site of a prior cesarean scar. Up to 70% of women who have had a prior cesarean section experience uterine niche, of which 30% have symptoms. Compared to a single full-thickness closure, a single-layer, decidua sparing closure approach is more likely to result in an incomplete closure. No differences were discovered between the single- and double-layer closure techniques with locked first layers, but double-layer closures without locking resulted in thicker residual myometrium thickness when compared with locked single-layer closures. It is also possible that the locked suture can strangulate the scar tissue leading to poorer healing. Current evidence shows that no significant difference between single-layer and double-layer uterine closure techniques following in terms of uterine niche development.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Henrich W. Cesarean scar niche and uterotomy closure technique. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.
;97(5):630–630. doi:10.1111/aogs.13292
II. Stegwee S, Jordans I, van der Voet L, van de Ven P, Ket J, Lambalk C, et al. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2018;125(9):1097–108. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15048
III. Kremer TG, Ghiorzi IB, Dibi RP. Isthmocele: An overview of diagnosis and treatment. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2019;65(5):714–21. doi:10.1590/1806-9282.65.5.714
IV. Vervoort AJMW, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJK, Brölmann HAM, Mol BWJ, Huirne JAF. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Human Reproduction. 2015;2695–702.
doi:10.1093/humrep/dev240
V. Kulshrestha V, Agarwal N, Kachhawa G. Post-caesarean niche (isthmocele) in uterine scar: An update. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2020;70(6):440–6. doi:10.1007/s13224-020-01370-0
VI. Stegwee S, Voet L, Ben A, Leeuw R, Ven P, Duijnhoven R, et al. Effect of single‐ versus double‐layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): Multicentre, double‐blind, Randomised Controlled Superiority Trial. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2020;128(5):866–78.
doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16472
VII. CORONIS. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the Coronis fractional, factorial, unmasked, Randomised Controlled Trial. The Lancet. 2016;388(10039):62–72.
doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00204-x
VIII. Bamberg C, Dudenhausen J, Bujak V, Rodekamp E, Brauer M, Hinkson L, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of single vs. double layer closure of hysterotomy at the time of cesarean delivery: The effect on uterine scar thickness. Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound. 2016;39(03):343–51. doi:10.1055/s-0042-112223
IX. Bennich G, Rudnicki M, Wilken-Jensen C, Lousen T, Lassen PD, Wøjdemann K. Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a cesarean uterine incision: Randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016;47(4):417–22. doi:10.1002/uog.15792
X. Hanacek J, Vojtech J, Urbankova I, Krcmar M, Křepelka P, Feyereisl J, et al. Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one‐ or two‐layer uterine suture closure. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2019;99(1):69–78. doi:10.1111/aogs.13714
XI. Kalem Z, Kaya AE, Bakırarar B, Basbug A, Kalem MN. An optimal uterine closure technique for better scar healing and avoiding Isthmocele in cesarean section: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2019;34(2):148–56.
doi:10.1080/08941939.2019.1610530
XII. E. Khamees R, H. Khedr A, Shaaban M, Bahi-Eldin M. Effect of single versus double layer suturing on healing of uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Suez Canal University Medical Journal. 2018;21(2):140–5. doi:10.21608/scumj.2018.43594
XIII. Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, Vikhareva O, Markey S, Chaillet N, et al. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;214(4).
doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.916
XIV. Sevket O, Ates S, Molla T, Ozkal F, Uysal O, Dansuk R. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2014;125(3):219–22.
doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.013
XV. EL-Gharib MN, Awara AM. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar thickness after single versus double layer closure of transverse lower segment cesarean section. Journal of Basic and Clinical Reproductive Sciences. 2013;2(1):42.
doi:10.4103/2278-960x.112591
XVI. Yılmaz Baran Ş, Kalaycı H, Doğan Durdağ G, Yetkinel S, Alemdaroğlu S, Çok T, et al. Single‐ or double‐layer uterine closure techniques following cesarean: A randomized trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2020;100(3):531–7. doi:10.1111/aogs.14018
XVII. ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019;133(2):110–27.
doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000003078
XVIII. Clapp MA, Barth WH. The future of cesarean delivery rates in the United States. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017;60(4):829–39. doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000325
XIX. Sung S, Mahdy H. Cesarean section [Internet]. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 18]. Available from:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31536313/
XX. Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang C-C, Driggers RW, Laughon SK. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013;122(1):33–40.
doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e3182952242
XXI. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;210(3):179–93. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026
XXII. Indraccolo U, Pace M, Corona G, Bonito M, Indraccolo SR, Di Iorio R. Cesarean section in the absence of labor and risk of respiratory complications in newborns: A case-control study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2017;32(7):1160–6.
doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1401999
XXIII. Zaphiratos V, George RB, Boyd JC, Habib AS. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest. 2016;36(3):137–8. doi:10.1097/01.aoa.0000489457.90123.17
XXIV. Antoine C, Pimentel RN, Reece EA, Oh C. Endometrium-free uterine closure technique and abnormal placental implantation in subsequent pregnancies. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2019;34(15):2513–21. doi:10.1080/14767058.2019.1670158
XXV. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 183: Postpartum hemorrhage. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017;130(4):168–86. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351
XXVI. Haas DM, Morgan S, Contreras K, Enders S. Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(7).
doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007892.pub6
XXVII. Kremer TG, Ghiorzi IB, Dibi RP. Isthmocele: An overview of diagnosis and treatment. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2019;65(5):714–21. doi:10.1590/1806-9282.65.5.714
XXVIII. van der Voet L, Bij de Vaate A, Veersema S, Brölmann H, Huirne J. 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. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynaecology. 2013;121(2):236–44.
doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12542
XXIX. Setubal A, Alves J, Osório F, Guerra A, Fernandes R, Albornoz J, et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouchlike defect at the site of a cesarean section scar. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2018;25(1):38–46.
doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022
XXX. Antila-Långsjö RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: A prospective study on risk factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;219(5). doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.004
XXXI. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following cesarean section: Systematic review. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;43(4):372–82. doi:10.1002/uog.13199
XXXII. Antila RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM. Association of cesarean scar defect with abnormal uterine bleeding: The results of a prospective study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2020;244:134–40. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.11.021
XXXIII. Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q, Chen J, Ding J, Hua K. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2016;134(3):336–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.04.011
XXXIV. Tekiner NB, Çetin BA, Türkgeldi LS, Yılmaz G, Polat İ, Gedikbaşı A. Evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer hysterotomy closure: A prospective cross-sectional study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2018;297(5):1137–43. doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4702-z