• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经阴道超声评估 607 例剖宫产术后非妊娠妇女的子宫瘢痕愈合情况。

Evaluation of uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound in 607 nonpregnant women with a history of cesarean section.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xinhua Hospital, Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 1665 Kong Jiang Road, Shanghai, 200092, China.

Department of Gynecology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Shandong, 266071, China.

出版信息

BMC Womens Health. 2021 May 13;21(1):199. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01337-x.

DOI:10.1186/s12905-021-01337-x
PMID:33985487
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8117607/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Caesarean scar defect (CSD) seriously affects female reproductive health. In this study, we aim to evaluate uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) in nonpregnant women with cesarean section (CS) history and to build a predictive model for cesarean scar defects is very necessary.

METHODS

A total of 607 nonpregnant women with previous CS who have transvaginal ultrasound measurements of the thickness of the lower uterine segment. The related clinical data were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients were divided into two groups according to their clinical symptoms: Group A (N = 405) who had no cesarean scar symptoms, and Group B (N = 141) who had cesarean scar symptoms. The difference in frequency of CS, uterine position, detection rate of CSD and the residual muscular layer (TRM) of the CSD were statistically significant between groups; the TRM measurements of the two groups were (mm) 5.39 ± 3.34 versus 3.22 ± 2.33, P < 0.05. All patients were divided into two groups according to whether they had CSDs: Group C (N = 337) who had no CSDs, Group D (N = 209) who had CSDs on ultrasound examination. The differences in frequency of CS, uterine position, TRM between groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). In the model predicting CSDs by TRM with TVS, the area under the ROC curve was 0.771, the cut-off value was 4.15 mm. The sensitivity and specificity were 87.8% and 71.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with no clinical symptoms had a mean TRM on transvaginal ultrasonography of 5.39 ± 3.34 mm, which could be used as a good reference to predict the recovery of patients with CSDs after repair surgery.

摘要

背景

剖宫产子宫瘢痕缺陷(CSD)严重影响女性生殖健康。本研究旨在通过经阴道超声(TVS)评估有剖宫产史的非妊娠妇女的子宫瘢痕愈合情况,并建立预测剖宫产子宫瘢痕缺陷的模型是非常必要的。

方法

共对 607 名有经阴道超声测量下段子宫厚度的既往剖宫产史的非妊娠妇女进行了研究。记录并分析了相关的临床资料。

结果

所有患者均根据临床症状分为两组:A 组(N=405)无剖宫产瘢痕症状,B 组(N=141)有剖宫产瘢痕症状。两组间剖宫产次数、子宫位置、CSD 检出率及 CSD 残留肌层(TRM)差异有统计学意义;两组 TRM 测量值分别为(mm)5.39±3.34 与 3.22±2.33,P<0.05。所有患者均根据是否存在 CSD 分为两组:C 组(N=337)无 CSD,D 组(N=209)超声检查有 CSD。两组间剖宫产次数、子宫位置、TRM 差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在以 TVS 测量的 TRM 预测 CSD 的模型中,ROC 曲线下面积为 0.771,截断值为 4.15mm。其灵敏度和特异度分别为 87.8%和 71.3%。

结论

无临床症状的患者经阴道超声 TRM 平均值为 5.39±3.34mm,可作为预测 CSD 修复术后患者恢复情况的良好参考。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/59af/8117607/74af7f2ed0d7/12905_2021_1337_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/59af/8117607/c9cd2b9afe8b/12905_2021_1337_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/59af/8117607/74af7f2ed0d7/12905_2021_1337_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/59af/8117607/c9cd2b9afe8b/12905_2021_1337_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/59af/8117607/74af7f2ed0d7/12905_2021_1337_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Evaluation of uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound in 607 nonpregnant women with a history of cesarean section.经阴道超声评估 607 例剖宫产术后非妊娠妇女的子宫瘢痕愈合情况。
BMC Womens Health. 2021 May 13;21(1):199. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01337-x.
2
Transabdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound to assess the thickness of lower uterine segment at term in women with previous cesarean section.经腹与经阴道超声评估有剖宫产史的足月孕妇子宫下段厚度。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 Apr;271:145-151. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.01.027. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
3
Pilot study of MRI/ultrasound fusion imaging in postpartum assessment of Cesarean section scar.剖宫产术后子宫切口瘢痕的 MRI/超声融合成像初步研究。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;50(4):520-526. doi: 10.1002/uog.17349.
4
Transvaginal Sonographic Evaluation of Cesarean Section Scar Niche in Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.经阴道超声评估妊娠剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕憩室:一项前瞻性纵向研究。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Oct 12;57(10):1091. doi: 10.3390/medicina57101091.
5
Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging.剖宫产瘢痕缺陷:危险因素及经阴道超声与磁共振成像评估效果的比较。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Nov;242:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.09.001. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
6
Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after elective second cesarean section.择期行二次剖宫产术后子宫切口愈合不良。
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Mar;34(6):943-947. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1622676. Epub 2019 May 30.
7
The association of endometrial closure during cesarean section to the risk of developing uterine scar defect: a randomized control trial.剖宫产术中子宫内膜封闭与子宫瘢痕缺陷发生风险的关联:一项随机对照试验。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 May;309(5):2063-2070. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07417-1. Epub 2024 Mar 18.
8
Agreement between transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect.经阴道超声与子宫输卵管造影在剖宫产瘢痕缺陷评估中的一致性
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019 Dec;48(10):827-831. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.05.013. Epub 2019 May 8.
9
Association between ultrasonographic parameters of Cesarean scar defect and outcome of early termination of pregnancy.剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕缺陷的超声参数与早期终止妊娠结局的关系。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;47(4):506-10. doi: 10.1002/uog.14877.
10
Cesarean section scar diverticulum evaluation by saline contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: The relationship between variable parameters and longer menstrual bleeding.盐水增强磁共振成像评估剖宫产瘢痕憩室:可变参数与经期延长出血之间的关系
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017 Apr;43(4):696-704. doi: 10.1111/jog.13255. Epub 2017 Feb 6.

引用本文的文献

1
Accuracy of multimodal vaginal ultrasound in the detection and assessment of scar healing after caesarean section: a correlational meta-analysis.多模态经阴道超声在剖宫产术后瘢痕愈合检测与评估中的准确性:一项相关性荟萃分析。
Ann Med. 2025 Dec;57(1):2523558. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2523558. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
2
Single- vs double-layer uterine closure of the cesarean scar in niche development: the Nicest Study.剖宫产瘢痕处单层与双层子宫关闭在憩室形成中的比较:Nicest研究
AJOG Glob Rep. 2025 Jun 4;5(2):100507. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2025.100507. eCollection 2025 May.
3
Two-layer interrupted versus two-layer continuous sutures for preventing cesarean scar defect: a randomized controlled trial.

本文引用的文献

1
Caesarean scar pregnancy: descriptive paper of three different types of management on a series of clinical cases.剖宫产瘢痕妊娠:一系列临床病例中三种不同治疗方法的描述性论文。
Prz Menopauzalny. 2020 Jul;19(2):61-65. doi: 10.5114/pm.2020.97836. Epub 2020 Jul 13.
2
From hysteroscopy to laparoendoscopic surgery: what is the best surgical approach for symptomatic isthmocele? A systematic review and meta-analysis.从宫腔镜到腹腔镜手术:有症状的峡部憩室的最佳手术方法是什么?系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Jan;301(1):33-52. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05438-0. Epub 2020 Jan 27.
3
Clinical outcomes of hysteroscopy-assisted transvaginal repair of cesarean scar defect.
双层间断缝合与双层连续缝合预防剖宫产瘢痕缺损:一项随机对照试验
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Mar 7;25(1):248. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07353-1.
4
Diagnostic yield of transvaginal ultrasonography versus saline: infused sonohysterography in the evaluation of post-cesarean section uterine niche.经阴道超声检查与生理盐水灌注子宫输卵管造影术在剖宫产术后子宫切口憩室评估中的诊断效能比较
J Ultrasound. 2025 Mar;28(1):107-117. doi: 10.1007/s40477-024-00969-7. Epub 2024 Nov 18.
5
Association of caesarean scar defect with risk of abnormal uterine bleeding: results from meta-analysis.剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕缺陷与异常子宫出血风险的相关性:荟萃分析结果。
BMC Womens Health. 2024 Jul 29;24(1):432. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03198-6.
6
The association between gynecological complaints and the uterine sonographic features in women with a history of cesarean section.剖宫产术后女性妇科症状与子宫声像图特征的相关性。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 Jul;310(1):485-491. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07526-x. Epub 2024 May 2.
7
A transvaginal ultrasound-based diagnostic calculator for uterus post-cesarean scar defect.经阴道超声诊断剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕缺陷的计算器。
BMC Womens Health. 2023 Oct 27;23(1):558. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02715-3.
宫腔镜辅助经阴道修复剖宫产瘢痕缺损的临床结局
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Feb;46(2):279-285. doi: 10.1111/jog.14161. Epub 2020 Jan 20.
4
Uterine Scar Healing After Cesarean Section: Managing an Old Surgery in an Evidence-Based Environment.剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕愈合:在循证医学环境下处理既往手术问题
J Invest Surg. 2019 Dec;32(8):770-772. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1465145. Epub 2018 May 9.
5
Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure.对非妊娠妇女子宫窝的超声检查:改良 Delphi 法。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):107-115. doi: 10.1002/uog.19049.
6
Defect width: the prognostic index for vaginal repair of cesarean section diverticula.缺损宽度:剖宫产憩室阴道修复的预后指标。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Mar;295(3):623-630. doi: 10.1007/s00404-016-4245-0. Epub 2016 Nov 25.
7
Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women.38 例剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕缺陷腹腔镜修补术的妇产科结局。
Fertil Steril. 2017 Jan;107(1):289-296.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033. Epub 2016 Nov 2.
8
Vaginal Repair of Cesarean Section Scar Diverticula that Resulted in Improved Postoperative Menstruation.剖宫产瘢痕憩室的阴道修复术改善了术后月经情况。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Sep-Oct;23(6):969-78. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.013. Epub 2016 Jun 23.
9
Prediction of uterine dehiscence using ultrasonographic parameters of cesarean section scar in the nonpregnant uterus: a prospective observational study.利用非妊娠子宫剖宫产瘢痕的超声参数预测子宫破裂:一项前瞻性观察研究。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Oct 29;14:365. doi: 10.1186/s12884-014-0365-3.
10
Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery.超声检查评估两种不同缝合技术对剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕愈合的影响。
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jun;125(3):219-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.013. Epub 2014 Feb 28.