ArticleClinical medicine insights. Case reports2023
Intra-operative Diagnosis of Lower Segment Scar Dehiscence in a Second Gravida After One Previous Lower Segment Cesarean Section: Should We Advocate for Routine Antenatal Uterine Scar Thickness Testing?
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Case reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Uterine Dehiscence: A Diagnostic Conundrum in Repeat Cesarean Deliveries".Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Ultrasound evaluation of scar thickness for prediction of uterine dehiscence in term women with previous caesarean sections.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Prenatal Detection and Conservative Management of Uterine Scar Dehiscence in Patient with Previous Uterine Rupture and Multiple Surgeries-A Case Report.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Uterine dehiscence is a separation of uterine musculature with intact uterine serosa. It can be encountered at the time of cesarean delivery, suspected on obstetric ultrasound or diagnosed in-between pregnancies. The antenatal diagnosis may occasionally elude the Obstetricians. This particular case demonstrates an intra-operative diagnosis of uterine dehiscence with missed antenatal ultrasound diagnosis in an asymptomatic woman. Case presentation: She was a 32-year-old Nigerian second gravida who booked for antenatal care at 32 weeks of gestation following a referral from her attending Obstetrician from a neighboring state due to relocation. She had 3 antenatal visits and 2 antenatal ultrasound investigations without uterine scar thickness report. She subsequently had elective Cesarean section (CS) at a gestational age of 38 weeks plus 2 days due to persistent breech presentation on a background of a previous lower segment CS scar. There was no previous uterine curettage prior to or after the previous lower segment CS scar and there was no labor pains prior to the elective CS. The surgery was successful with intra-operative findings of moderate intra parietal peritoneal adhesions with rectus sheath and obvious uterine dehiscence along the line of the previous CS scar. The fetal outcomes were normal. Immediate post-operative condition was satisfactory and the woman was discharged on a third-day post operation. Conclusion: Obstetricians are charged to maintain a high index of suspicion when managing pregnant women with history of emergency CS in order to avert the adverse consequences of uterine rupture from asymptomatic uterine dehiscence. Based on this report, it may be useful to routinely assess the lower uterine segment scar of women with previous emergency CS using the available ultrasound facilities. However, more studies are needed before advocating for routine antenatal uterine scar thickness testing following emergency lower segment CS in low and middle-income settings.
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.