SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygun M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 124: 3236.
  • 2
    Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21: 98113.
  • 3
    value Qa. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement (London, UK). Case series 1. http://www.institute.nhs.uk/ [Accessed 1 March 2011].
  • 4
    Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, Rosenberg VA, Buhimschi IA, Buhimschi CS. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 808813.
  • 5
    Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J, Jurkovic D. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 7277.
  • 6
    Poidevin LO. The value of hysterography in the prediction of cesarean section wound defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961; 81: 6771.
  • 7
    Burger NF, Darazs B, Boes EG. An echographic evaluation during the early puerperium of the uterine wound after caesarean section. J Clin Ultrasound 1982; 10: 271274.
  • 8
    Chen HY, Chen SJ, Hsieh FJ. Observation of cesarean section scar by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990; 16: 443447.
  • 9
    Dicle O, Kucukler C, Pirnar T, Erata Y, Posaci C. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 3134.
  • 10
    Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 11051115.
  • 11
    Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525532.
  • 12
    Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 321327.
  • 13
    Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R, Irion O, Boulvain M. Inter- and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 420424.
  • 14
    Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FM, Nastri CO, Filho FM. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 301306.
  • 15
    Jurkovic D. Three-dimensional ultrasound in gynecology: a critical evaluation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 109111.
  • 16
    Bij de Vaate AJ, Brolmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 9399.
  • 17
    Cheong KB, Leung KY, Li TK, Chan HY, Lee YP, Tang MH. Comparison of inter- and intraobserver agreement and reliability between three different types of placental volume measurement technique (XI VOCAL, VOCAL and multiplanar) and validity in the in-vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 210217.
  • 18
    Vikhareva Osser O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 9097.
  • 19
    Wang CB, Chiu WW, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 8589.
  • 20
    Menada Valenzano M, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E, Costantini S, Ragni N. Vaginal ultrasonographic and hysterosonographic evaluation of the low transverse incision after caesarean section: correlation with gynaecological symptoms. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2006; 61: 216222.
  • 21
    Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C, Benali N, van Rysselberghe M, Barlow P, Rozenberg S. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 289292.
  • 22
    Armstrong V, Hansen WF, Van Voorhis BJ, Syrop CH. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 6165.
  • 23
    Vikhareva Osser O, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 7583.
  • 24
    Vikhareva Osser O. Ultrasound Studies of Caesarean Hysterotomy Scars. Lund University: Sweden, 2010.
  • 25
    Chazotte C, Cohen WR. Catastrophic complications of previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 738742.
  • 26
    Enkin M, Keirse MJNC. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Medical Publications: Oxford University, 1995.
  • 27
    Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 320 e1e6.
  • 28
    Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347: 281284.
  • 29
    Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G, Suzuki S, Araki T. Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labor: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nihon Med Sch 2000; 67: 352356.
  • 30
    Qureshi B, Inafuku K, Oshima K, Masamoto H, Kanazawa K. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment to predict the integrity and quality of cesarean scar during pregnancy: a prospective study. Tohoku J Exp Med 1997; 183: 5565.
  • 31
    Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, Yoshimura S, Miyamura T, Ishimaru T. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 596600.
  • 32
    Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87: 215219.
  • 33
    Story L, Patterson-Brown S. Caesarean deliveries: indications, techniques and complications. In Best Practice in Labour and Delivery, Warren R, Arulkumaran S (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2009; 104115.
  • 34
    The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Measurement of cervical length. http://www.fetalmedicine.com/fmf/online-education/05-cervical-assessment [Accessed 1 March 2011].
  • 35
    Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, McIndoe A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Visibility and measurement of Cesarean section scars in pregnancy: an interobserver variability study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; in press.
  • 36
    Timmerman D, Schwarzler P, Collins WP, Claerhout F, Coenen M, Amant F, Vergote I, Bourne TH. Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 1116.
  • 37
    Chen LH, Tan KH, Yeo GS. A ten-year review of uterine rupture in modern obstetric practice. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1995; 24: 830835.