Vo
lu
m
e
5,
M
ar
ch
,2
02
5
,
M
ED
IC
AL
SC
IE
N
CE
S.
IM
PA
CT
FA
CT
OR
:7
,8
9
CESAREAN SCAR ON THE UTERUS: INCIDENCE, CONSEQUENCES, AND
RESTORATION METHODS
Ermatova Khilolakhon Saidaloevna
Master’s Student, 1st Year, Tashkent Medical Academy
Abstract:
Cesarean section is one of the leading methods of delivery, with a global trend
toward increasing frequency. According to statistical data, 15.2% to 42% of all deliveries are
performed via cesarean section [1]. One of the significant complications following cesarean
section is uterine scar insufficiency, which is particularly important when planning
subsequent pregnancies. The risk of scar rupture, accompanied by life-threatening
hemorrhage, ranges from 0.62% to 9% [2].
Keywords:
Cesarean section, uterine scar insufficiency, scar defect, niche, uterine rupture,
myometrial thinning, postoperative complications, placenta accreta spectrum, adhesion
process, ultrasound diagnostics, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reconstructive uterine
surgery, obstetric outcomes, reproductive health, interpregnancy monitoring.
Reconstructive uterine surgeries aim to restore the anatomical integrity of the myometrium
and reduce the likelihood of complications in future pregnancies. In recent years, increasing
attention has been paid to the diagnosis of scar conditions not only during pregnancy but
also in the interpregnancy period. Modern diagnostic methods include the detection of scar
defects (“niche”) using ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [3].
True uterine scar insufficiency may be associated with the formation of fistulous tracts
due to impaired healing processes of the postoperative wound, which most commonly
occurs within the first 21 days after surgery. The main causes include postoperative infection,
the formation of hematomas between sutures, infiltrates, and abscesses [4]. Fistulas are most
frequently detected in the corners of the postoperative scar [5].
The diagnosis of uterine scar insufficiency requires a comprehensive approach,
incorporating clinical data, ultrasound diagnostics, and, if necessary, endoscopic methods.
The management of such patients depends on the severity of the scar defect and reproductive
plans [6].
Introduction
A scar defect (“niche”) in the lower uterine segment is one of the most common
consequences of cesarean section. According to ultrasound studies, scar defects are detected
in 60% of patients who have undergone cesarean section, with large “niches” identified in
25% [7].
A large “niche” is diagnosed when more than 50% of the myometrial thickness in the scar
area consists of scar tissue. Despite their high prevalence, in many cases, “niches” remain
asymptomatic and do not require treatment. However, the underlying mechanisms of their
formation remain insufficiently studied, and their presence may contribute to the
development of obstetric and gynecological complications [8].
Vo
lu
m
e
5,
M
ar
ch
,2
02
5
,
M
ED
IC
AL
SC
IE
N
CE
S.
IM
PA
CT
FA
CT
OR
:7
,8
9
Recent studies suggest that the formation of “niches” is more closely associated with
impaired postoperative reparative processes rather than surgical technique. Additionally,
scar defects are more commonly observed in women with concomitant adenomyosis [9].
Current Data on the Frequency of Cesarean Section and Its Consequences
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the rate of cesarean sections has
steadily increased over recent decades, reaching up to 27.2% of all deliveries in Western
countries [10]. The growing number of cesarean deliveries has led to an increase in cases of
uterine scar insufficiency and associated complications, including uterine rupture, placenta
accreta spectrum disorders, and uterine perforation [11].
Complications following cesarean section in subsequent pregnancies may include not
only uterine rupture but also placental attachment abnormalities, premature placental
abruption, placental hemorrhage, fetal malposition, low birth weight, and the need for repeat
cesarean delivery [12].
A study involving 30 patients who had undergone cesarean section was conducted to
analyze the condition of the postoperative scar following primary, repeat, and tertiary
cesarean sections. In 63.3% of patients who underwent repeat or tertiary cesarean delivery,
thinning of the scar area to less than 2.5 mm was observed, while in 40% of cases, a
pronounced adhesion process was detected in the lower uterine segment and the anterior
abdominal wall [13].
A clear correlation was identified between the number of prior cesarean sections and the
severity of degenerative changes in the scar area.
The greater the number of previous operations, the higher the frequency of large “niches”
and areas of localized myometrial hypotrophy [14].
During interpregnancy ultrasound examinations, 70% of patients with previous repeat
cesarean sections exhibited areas of thinned myometrium and localized deformities of the
scar area [15]. These findings highlight the necessity of dynamic monitoring and timely
diagnosis of scar insufficiency before planning a subsequent pregnancy [16].
Conclusion
The increasing rate of cesarean sections has led to a rise in the number of women with
uterine scar insufficiency. Early diagnosis of scar defects, particularly in the interpregnancy
period, enables the development of individualized patient management strategies and
reduces the risk of uterine rupture and other complications in future pregnancies [17].
The advancement of new diagnostic methods, including improved ultrasound protocols
and magnetic resonance imaging, facilitates the early detection of pathological changes and
the optimal selection of treatment strategies [18]. Furthermore, surgical techniques for scar
defect correction continue to improve, reducing the incidence of complications and
enhancing women’s reproductive potential [19].
Vo
lu
m
e
5,
M
ar
ch
,2
02
5
,
M
ED
IC
AL
SC
IE
N
CE
S.
IM
PA
CT
FA
CT
OR
:7
,8
9
Further research is required to develop effective algorithms for diagnosing and managing
patients with myometrial scar alterations. Special attention should be given to the
comparative analysis of various surgical treatment methods and their long-term reproductive
outcomes [20].
A comprehensive approach to the issue of uterine scar insufficiency following cesarean
section will help minimize risks for both mother and fetus, improve pregnancy outcomes,
and reduce the incidence of obstetric complications [21, 22].
References
1. World Health Organization. (2015). Practice Guide on Cesarean Section. Geneva: WHO.
2. R.M. Silver. (2012). Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term maternal outcomes.
Semin Perinatol, 36(5): 411-417.
3. A. Tower, F. Regan. (2017). Scar pregnancy after cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol,
109(6): 1373-1380.
4. S.I. Stegwee, L. Klinkert, E. Hink, M. Lambregts, R.A. de Leeuw, P.M. van de Ven, et al.
(2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical techniques for Cesarean scar defect
repair. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 51(2): 176-185.
5. A.P. Betran, J. Ye, A.B. Moller, J.P. Souza, J. Zhang. (2021). Trends and projections of
cesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Global Health, 6(6): e005671.
6. E.N. Rovenskaya, N.V. Letova, L.S. Solovyova, L.A. Chebotareva. (2020). Cesarean
scar insufficiency: modern aspects of diagnosis and treatment. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 3:
43-48.
7. M. Tanimura, et al. (2017). A new scoring system for predicting cesarean scar defect in
pregnant uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 43(10): 1523-1529.
8. O.V. Osser, L. Jokubkiene, L. Valentin. (2010). High prevalence of defects in cesarean
section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 36(1): 72-
77.
9. A.Y. Razumovsky, O.G. Samokhvalova, Yu.I. Belousova. (2019). Cesarean section:
optimization of surgical techniques. Russian Journal of Obstetrician-Gynecologist, 19(3):
41-46.
10. O. Vikhareva, L. Valentin. (2011). Clinical importance of cesarean hysterotomy scar
appearance at routine transvaginal sonographic examination in nonpregnant women. Obstet
Gynecol, 117(3): 525-532.
11. A.Y. Sobolev, L.I. Melnik. (2020). Obstetric complications after cesarean section.
Russian Journal of Obstetrician-Gynecologist, 20(5): 60-66.
Vo
lu
m
e
5,
M
ar
ch
,2
02
5
,
M
ED
IC
AL
SC
IE
N
CE
S.
IM
PA
CT
FA
CT
OR
:7
,8
9
12. O. Naji, A. Daemen, A. Smith, et al. (2012). High prevalence of uterine niches in
women with cesarean section scar: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod,
27(7): 2021-2032.
13. A.F. Chugunova, I.A. Karpova, S.K. Alimova. (2018). Features of ultrasound
diagnostics of the uterine scar after cesarean section. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4: 45-49.
14. I.E. Timor-Tritsch, A. Monteagudo. (2019). Unforeseen consequences of the increasing
rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review.
Am J Obstet Gynecol, 221(6): 557-569.
15. N.N. Yudina, O.I. Efremova. (2020). Cesarean section: impact on women’s
reproductive health. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5: 7-12.
16. S. Ferrero, E. Arena, A. Morando, V. Remorgida, U. Leone Roberti Maggiore. (2019).
Reproductive outcomes after cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. J Ultrasound Med, 38(6): 1561-1569.
17. A.V. Chirkova, E.M. Zakharova, E.A. Ignatova. (2021). Modern approaches to the
diagnosis and treatment of cesarean scar insufficiency. Issues of Gynecology, Obstetrics and
Perinatology, 20(3): 78-85.
18. A. Kaelin Agten, G. Cali, A. Monteagudo, J. Oviedo, J. Ramos, I.E. Timor-Tritsch.
(2017). The clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” vs. “in
the niche”. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 216(5): 510.e1-510.e6.
19. L.V. Adamyan, R.R. Damirov, E.V. Tskhai, E.N. Malyutina. (2019). The impact of
cesarean section on maternal mortality. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5: 13-17.
20. D. Jurkovic, K. Hillaby, B. Woelfer, A. Lawrence, R. Salim, C.J. Elson. (2003). First-
trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine
segment cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 21(3): 220-227.
21. N. Gonzalez, T. Tulandi. (2017). Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review. J
Minim Invasive Gynecol, 24(5): 731-738.
22. N.M. Zelenskaya, Yu.A. Arbatskaya, N.V. Sivova, I.V. Kovalenko, E.N. Pechenina.
(2020). Features of diagnosis and management of patients with scar changes in the uterus.
Issues of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology, 19(3): 72-78.
