Three-Dimensional Volume Ultrasound Assessment of Cesarean Scar Niche and Cervix in Pregnant Women: A Reproducibility Study

Overview

Journal J Ultrasound Med

Date 2024 Nov 7

PMID 39508476

Authors

Maria Ivan

Heba Mahdy

Amrita Banerjee

Amos Tetteh

Natalie Greenwold

Davide Casagrandi

Davor Jurkovic

Raffaele Napolitano

Anna L David

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of standardized 3-dimensional (3D) ultrasound volume analysis of the dimensions and the position of cesarean birth (CB) scar niche relative to the cervix in pregnant women.

Methods: This prospective single-center study in women with 1 previous CB ≥8 cm cervical dilatation acquired ultrasound volumes between 11 and 24 weeks' gestation in a mid-sagittal plane. Two experienced operators processed the volumes using virtual organ computer-aided analysis. A CB scar niche was defined as an indentation at the scar site of ≥2 mm in depth. Niche and cervix volumes were calculated using manual contouring. Agreement for categorical variables was expressed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Bland-Altman method was used to assess numerical variable reproducibility.

Results: To achieve the desired statistical power, 52 participants were included. The intraobserver agreement on niche classification relative to the internal os was 100%, with an interobserver kappa coefficient of 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99, P < .05). The intraobserver ICC for niche volume was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96; P < .001), with a mean difference of -15.32 mm (±109.32). The interobserver ICC was 0.78 (95% CI 0.62-0.87; P < .001), with a mean difference of -21.57 mm (±202.01). The ICC for niche/cervix volume ratio were 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96; P < .001) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.63-0.87; P < .001) for intra- and interobserver reproducibility, respectively.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that 3D CB scar sonographic features are highly reproducible in pregnant women with a history of advanced labor CB. The validated protocol can guide future research on the association with subsequent adverse pregnancy outcomes.

References

Levine L, Sammel M, Hirshberg A, Elovitz M, Srinivas S . Does stage of labor at time of cesarean delivery affect risk of subsequent preterm birth?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 212(3):360.e1-7. PMC: 4346465. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.09.035. View

Asicioglu O, Gungorduk K, Yildirim G, Asicioglu B, Gungorduk O, Ark C . Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 34(7):598-604. DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2014.920790. View

Napolitano R, Donadono V, Ohuma E, Knight C, Wanyonyi S, Kemp B . Scientific basis for standardization of fetal head measurements by ultrasound: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(1):80-5. PMC: 5113683. DOI: 10.1002/uog.15956. View

Ioannou C, Sarris I, Napolitano R, Ohuma E, Javaid M, Papageorghiou A . A longitudinal study of normal fetal femur volume. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33(11):1088-94. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4203. View

Bij de Vaate A, Linskens I, Van der Voet L, Twisk J, Brolmann H, Huirne J . Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound for the measurement of a niche in a caesarean scar and assessment of its shape. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 188:39-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.018. View

Donadono V, Ambroise Grandjean G, Stegen M, Collin A, Bertholdt C, Casagrandi D . Training in Obstetric Ultrasound Biometry: Results from a Multicenter Reproducibility Study. J Ultrasound Med. 2022; 41(11):2819-2825. DOI: 10.1002/jum.15969. View

Bij de Vaate A, van der Voet L, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brolmann H . Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 43(4):372-82. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13199. View

Shapira M, Mashiach R, Meller N, Watad H, Baron A, Bouaziz J . Clinical Success Rate of Extensive Hysteroscopic Cesarean Scar Defect Excision and Correlation to Histologic Findings. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 27(1):129-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.03.001. View

Baranov A, Gunnarsson G, Salvesen K, Isberg P, Vikhareva O . Assessment of Cesarean hysterotomy scar in non-pregnant women: reliability of transvaginal sonography with and without contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 47(4):499-505. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14833. View

10.

Karpathiou G, Chauleur C, Dridi M, Baillard P, Corsini T, Dumollard J . Histologic Findings of Uterine Niches. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020; 154(5):645-655. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa080. View

11.

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

12.

Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse D, Barros A, Barros F, Juan L . Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018; 392(10155):1341-1348. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7. View

13.

Sarris I, Ohuma E, Ioannou C, Sande J, Altman D, Papageorghiou A . Fetal biometry: how well can offline measurements from three-dimensional volumes substitute real-time two-dimensional measurements?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42(5):560-70. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12410. View

14.

Ahmed A, Aldhaheri S, Rodriguez-Kovacs J, Narasimhulu D, Putra M, Minkoff H . Sonographic Measurement of Cervical Volume in Pregnant Women at High Risk of Preterm Birth Using a Geometric Formula for a Frustum Versus 3-Dimensional Automated Virtual Organ Computer-Aided Analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2017; 36(11):2209-2217. DOI: 10.1002/jum.14253. View

15.

Banerjee A, Al-Dabbach Z, Bredaki F, Casagrandi D, Tetteh A, Greenwold N . Reproducibility of assessment of full-dilatation Cesarean section scar in women undergoing second-trimester screening for preterm birth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 60(3):396-403. PMC: 9545619. DOI: 10.1002/uog.26027. View

16.

Athulathmudali S, Patabendige M, Chandrasinghe S, De Silva P . Transvaginal two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of cervical volume to predict the outcome of the induction of labour: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):433. PMC: 8218494. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03929-9. View

17.

Rovas L, Sladkevicius P, Strobel E, Valentin L . Reference data representative of normal findings at three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound examination of the cervix from 17 to 41 gestational weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 28(6):761-7. DOI: 10.1002/uog.2857. View

18.

Cong A, de Vries B, Ludlow J . Does previous caesarean section at full dilatation increase the likelihood of subsequent spontaneous preterm birth?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 58(3):267-273. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12713. View

19.

Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C . Visibility and measurement of cesarean section scars in pregnancy: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40(5):549-56. DOI: 10.1002/uog.11132. View

20.

Berghella V, Gimovsky A, Levine L, Vink J . Cesarean in the second stage: a possible risk factor for subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(1):1-3. PMC: 6069594. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.019. View