World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 2168
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
CASE REPORT
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1561-1565

Cesarean section scar dehiscence during pregnancy: Case reports


1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ahmadi Hospital, Kuwait Oil Company, Ahmadi, Kuwait; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology №1, Marat Ospanov, West Kazakhstan State Medical University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Ibrahim A Abdelazim
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ahmadi Hospital, Kuwait Oil Company, Ahmadi

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_361_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: The incidence of cesarean section increased worldwide with subsequent increase in the risk of cesarean section scar dehiscence (CSSD). The clinical significance and the management of the CSSD are still unclear. Case Reports: Here, we report two cases of CSSD. A 35-year-old woman, gravida 2, previous CS, due to preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and breech presentation at 30 weeks, was admitted for elective CS at 38+3d weeks' gestation. During the second elective CS, it was seen that the site of the previous CS scar was very thin along its whole length and the anterior uterine wall was completely deficient, leaving visible bulging fetal membranes and moving baby underneath. A 32-year-old woman, previous three CSs, was admitted as unbooked case without any antenatal records at 29+4d weeks' gestation, triplet pregnancy with preterm labor. She received betamethasone and magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) for fetal lung and fetal brain protection, respectively, followed by emergency CS. During the CS, the previous CSs scars were dehiscent over more than half of its length and the anterior uterine wall was missing leaving visible fetal membranes. The uterine incision of the studied women was repaired in two layers using vicryl 0 interrupted simple stitches for the first layer, followed by interrupted mattress stitches for the second layer. The studied women had uneventful postoperative recovery and were discharged from the hospital after counseling regarding intraoperative findings, uterine incisions repair, and future pregnancies. Conclusion: It is useful to assess the lower uterine segment of women with previous CS using the available ultrasound facilities. If the CSSD is diagnosed before the elective CS, the surgeon should prepare himself with the safest uterine incision with least possible complications and the best way of repair of the defective or dehiscent uterine wall.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed64    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal