ArticleReproduction & fertility2026
Repeat cesarean delivery with hysterectomy: a sheep model to examine uterine scars.
Article in Reproduction & fertility, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Graphical Abstract: Abstract: Cesarean delivery (CD) is one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide, with rising rates leading to an increasing impact of complications, such as uterine rupture during a trial of labor in a subsequent pregnancy. To date, only little information on uterine wound healing is available. The current challenge is to establish a suitable model and to define quantifiable outcome parameters of uterine scar tissue with the aim of comparing the effect of different surgical techniques on uterine scarring. This study presents a sheep model to examine the effects of different hysterotomy closure techniques. A total of 48 Merino ewes underwent planned CD. After one year, 40 ewes were mated again following estrus synchronization and received planned repeat CD with peripartum supracervical hysterectomy and sampling of uterine scar tissue without any major complications. Survival rates at repeat CD were 95.0 and 91.4% for ewes and lambs, respectively. Due to placement of non-absorbable sutures around the hysterotomy closure during the first CD, all scarred uterine wall segments could be identified. Of 80 uterine scars, 16 (20%) showed dehiscences with a macroscopic thinning of the uterine wall. A full-thickness uterine rupture was not found. Gomori trichrome staining was used to assess the collagen content histomorphometrically. It revealed a markedly scarred uterine wall. This translational model can be used to evaluate intraoperative approaches to optimize uterine wound healing, such as suturing techniques, pharmacological agents, or biomaterials, with the aim of reducing the risk of uterine rupture in humans and improving maternal outcomes in pregnancies after previous CD. Lay summary: CD is one of the most common operations worldwide. After a cesarean, a scar remains on the uterus. This scar may not heal properly, leading to the risk of serious complications in a subsequent pregnancy, such as uterine rupture. Despite this risk, very little is known about how the uterine wall heals after surgery, because suitable research models are scarce. This study shows that sheep can be used as a model to study uterine scar healing. A planned CD was performed in sheep. Sheep were mated again, and at the next planned cesarean, the uterus was removed and tissue from the scar was collected. The scars could be clearly identified, and some showed thinning similar to what is seen in humans. Microscopic analysis confirmed scar formation. This model will help researchers test new ways to improve uterine healing and make pregnancies after CD safer.
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.