ReviewJBRA assisted reproduction2023
Link between cesarean section scar defect and secondary infertility: Case reports and review.
Review in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of multimodal vaginal ultrasound in the detection and assessment of scar healing after caesarean section: a correlational meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Reproductive factors and subsequent pregnancy outcomes in patients with prior pregnancy loss.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Trial
- Cesarean Scar Defect (Isthmocele) and Secondary Infertility: A Systematic Review of Reproductive Significance.Cureus · 2026Review
- Comparing Cesarean Scar Defect Incidence After Locked and Unlocked Repair Methods Among Primiparous Patients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Trial.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2024Article
- Isthmocele and Infertility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to study clinical cases and understand the link between cesarean section scar defect with hydrometra and secondary infertility. A retrospective case series from an assisted reproductive center and infertility treatment clinic in the United Arab Emirates. We had five patients with secondary infertility diagnosed with cesarean section scar defect with persistent hydrometra based on high resolution transvaginal ultrasound assessment. The patients underwent surgical repair for the cesarean section scar defect followed by infertility treatment. Transvaginal ultrasound examination showed a normal endometrial cavity with triple lining endometrium and absence of hydrometra; and clinical pregnancy was the main outcome measure. Surgical correction of cesarean section scar defect was successfully performed in the cases presented. The patients had their fertility restored. Clinical studies revealed that cesarean section scar defect may lead to abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, pre-/post-menstrual spotting, heavy or prolonged menses, pelvic pain and secondary infertility. Theoretically, an inflammatory response, such as a wound healing process in the uterus due to hydrometra associated with scar defect may impair embryo implantation. The clinical case studies presented here are based on the correct diagnosis of the cesarean section scar defect with hydrometra and its successful surgical repair. The patients in our study had their symptoms resolved and attained clinical pregnancy.
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.