Observational studyPloS one2025
Laparoscopic repair of the caesarean section scar niche: A prospective cohort study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uterine cesarean scar resection during repeat cesarean delivery to prevent uterine niche formation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- A Rare Case of Cesarean Scar Diverticulum Rupture Induced by Intrauterine Infection in a Non-Pregnant Woman.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Folding Suture for Cesarean Scar Defect and Its Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of laparoscopic repair of the large niche on short-term and long-term outcomes, i.e., extent of scar healing (increase in scar thickness or residual myometrium (RM) and decrease in niche depth), decrease in menstrual symptoms, likelihood of conception and successful delivery. STUDY
designA prospective observational cohort study. METHODS AND
findingsAmong 333 patients referred with a niche diagnosed in transvaginal ultrasound (TVU), a group of 127 met the selection criteria for repair surgery (RM of <2.5 mm in its thinnest part in hysterosonography (HySoG) and a desire to conceive) and underwent the laparoscopic procedure (uterine cesarean scar and niche walls cold knife resection followed by resuturing of the uterine wall) between November 2015 and October 2022. The laparoscopic repair of niche increased the RM to 6.5 ± 2.6 mm in TVU and 6.1 ± 2.5 mm in HySoG. Postoperative failure, defined as incomplete scar formation with a niche and residual myometrium thickness under 2.5 mm, occurred in 8.2% of cases. Furthermore, 20.9% of scars showed residual myometrium thickness below 4 mm. Conversely, the rate of postoperative diverticulum, defined as an indentation at the site of the cesarean section scar with a depth of at least 2 mm, was 70.9%. Furthermore, indentations greater than 3 mm were found in 49.1% of cases. The surgical procedure significantly alleviated symptoms related to the niche: duration of postmenstrual spotting (P < 0.001), length of menstrual bleeding (P = 0.03), menstrual pain (P < 0.001) and menstrual flow (P = 0.02). In patients with a sustained postoperatively desire to conceive (N = 79, 62.2%) a vast majority fulfilled childbearing plans (n = 42, 53.2%), for at least once (93%). The best surgical outcomes were obtained when the procedure was performed in the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle before the peri-ovulatory time (P = 0.02) and the uterine reconstruction was employed with double-layer horizontal mattress sutures.
conclusionsThe conducted study demonstrated that the surgical procedure for scar repair brings benefits by reducing clinical symptoms of the defect, improving scar parameters, and achieving a high rate of successful reproductive plans.
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.