ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2024
Isthmoceles - Accuracy of imaging diagnosis and clinical correlation with histology: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Isthmoceles are a growing clinical concern. Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis of isthmoceles by imaging and to correlate the dimensions with clinical symptoms and histopathology. Materials and Methods: Prospective study of women (n=60) with ≥1 C-section undergoing hysterectomy. Isthmoceles were measured by imaging before surgery and macroscopically on the specimen after hysterectomy, followed by histological analysis. Main outcome measures: Accuracy of isthmocele diagnosis, correlation with clinical symptoms, and histopathological findings. Result: By imaging, isthmoceles were slightly deeper (P=0.0176) and shorter (P=0.0045) than macroscopic measurements. Differences were typically small (≤3mm). Defined as an indentation of ≥2 mm at site of C-section scar, imaging diagnosed 2 isthmoceles consequently not seen by histology and missed 3. Number of prior C-sections increased isthmocele severity but neither the incidence nor the remaining myometrial thickness (RMT) did. Severity correlated positively with symptoms and histology. However, clinical use was limited. Histological analysis revealed presence of thick wall vessels in 100%, elastosis in 40%, and adenomyosis in 38%. Isthmocele lining was asynchronous with the menstrual phase in 31%. Conclusions: Dimensions of isthmoceles by imaging were largely accurate with occasionally large differences observed. Number of C-sections did not increase isthmocele incidence, only severity. Indication for surgery remains clinical, considering dimensions and symptoms. What is new?: Dimensions of isthmoceles should be confirmed before surgery since uterine contractions might change those dimensions. Symptoms increase with dimensions of isthmoceles but are not specific. Endometrial lining within the isthmocele can be asynchronous with the menstrual phase.
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.