ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018
Obstetrical outcomes after vaginal repair of caesarean scar diverticula in reproductive-aged women.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal uterine niche repair: surgical technique and outcome.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- Impact of cesarean scar defect on reproductive outcomes after assisted reproductive technology.Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2024Review
- A case report of an endometriosis cyst at cesarean scar defect and review of literature.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Review
- Preparation and characterization of polyethylene glycol/chitosan composite water-based wound healing lubricant.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean scar defect.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2020Article
- Safety and feasibility of trial of labor in pregnant women with cesarean scar diverticulum.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough vaginal repair has been conducted to manage caesarean scar diverticula, most studies evaluated only the gynaecological outcomes post-surgery, and their obstetrical outcomes were unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the obstetrical outcomes in vaginal repair-treated caesarean scar diverticula patients.
methodsA series of 51 symptomatic women with caesarean scar defects or a thickness of the remaining muscular layer of less than 3 mm according to transvaginal ultrasound were included. We retrospectively evaluated the gynaecological and obstetrical outcomes after vaginal repair and histologically analysed the defect.
resultsTransvaginal ultrasound revealed that the thickness of the remaining muscular layer significantly increased from 2.24 ± 0.81 mm to 6.10 ± 1.43 mm 3 months after vaginal repair. The duration of menstruation significantly decreased from 14.29 ± 3.13 days to 8.31 ± 2.14 days post-vaginal repair. Notably, 26 of the 51 (50.98%) women who were followed for more than 15.04 months post-surgery achieved pregnancy. A total of 6 of the 26 pregnancies (23.08%) resulted in miscarriages, including 5 early miscarriages and 1 late miscarriage. Among the 20 women who achieved pregnancy without miscarriage, 18 had term deliveries, 2 had preterm birth, and none reported uterine rupture. Histological analysis was performed in all 51 cases. Muscle fibre density was significantly lower in the scar than in the myometrium adjacent to the scar and collagen expression was markedly increased in the scar tissue.
conclusionSatisfactory gynaecological and subsequent obstetrical outcomes can be achieved in vaginal repair-treated caesarean scar diverticula patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.