72

Список сокращений

ВРТ – вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии КС - кесарево сечение ВОЗ - всемирная организация здравоохранения

УЗИ - ультразвуковое исследование ТВУЗИ – трансвагинальное ультразвуковое исследование ГСГ - гистеросальпингография ЭхоГГ – эхогистерография

МРТ – магнитно-резонансная томография ГС – гистероскопия

TOLAC - Trial of labor after caesarean (попытка естественных родов после кесарева сечения)

ЕРП – Естественные родовые пути

https://t.me/medicina_free

73

Список литературы

1.Алиева Э.Н., Кулбаева С.Н. Кесарево сечение – резервы снижения частоты. Вестник Казахского Национального медицинского университета. 2015; 4: 5-6

2.Аракелян А.С., Мартынов С.А., Хорошун Н.Д. и др. Диагностика

ихирургическая коррекция несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения с использованием лапароскопии и гистероскопии. В кн.: Сухих Г.Т.,

Адамян Л.В. (ред.). Материалы XXIX конгресса «Новые технологии в диагностике и лечении гинекологических заболеваний». Москва, 7–10 июня

2016 г. М., 2016; c.179–80.

3.Беженарь В.Ф., Нестеров И.М. Передовые клинические практики

итехнологии в акушерстве: клиническое руководство (алгоритмы диагностики и лечения). В 2 ч. Ч. 1 / под общ. ред. В.Ф. Беженаря. - СПб.:

ПСПбГМУ, 2019. - 433 с.

4.Бирюкова Е.И., Рухляда Н.Н., Крылов К.Ю. Аденомиоз:

хирургический подход и репродуктивные исходы. Акушерство и

гинекология. 2019; 5: 30-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.5.30-34

5.Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Чечнева М.А. и др. Современные методы диагностики несостоятельности швов или рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Рос. вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2013; (1): 73–7.

6.Доброхотова Ю.Э., Кузнецов П.А., Копылова Ю.В., Джохадзе Л.С. Кесарево сечение: прошлое и будущее. Гинекология. 2015; 17 (3): 64–66.

7.Ищенко А.И., Давыдов А.И., Александров Л.С. и др.

Несостоятельность рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Выбор метода хирургического вмешательства. Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. 2018; 17 (4): 51–9. doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2018-4-51-59

8.Кан Н.Е., Тютюнник В.Л., Демура Т.А., Кесова М.И.

Особенности формирования рубца на матке после кесарева сечения при недифференцированной дисплазии соединительной ткани. Акушерство и гинекология. 2015; 1: 93–7.

https://t.me/medicina_free

74

9.Кесарево сечение. Показания, методы обезболивания, хирургическая техника, антибиотикопрофилактика, ведение послеоперационного периода. Клинические рекомендации (протокол лечения). Письмо Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации от 6 мая 2014 г. № 15-4/10/2-3190.

10.Краснопольская К.В., Попов А.А., Чечнева М.А. и др. Прегравидарная метропластика по поводу несостоятельного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения: влияние на естественную фертильность и результаты ЭКО. Проблемы репродукции. 2015; 3: 56–62. doi: 10.17116/repro20152135662

11.Купатадзе Д.Д., Сафронова М.М., Ильинская Е.В. Электронно-

микроскопическое исследование рубца миометрия после применения би- и

монополярного каутеров. Педиатр. 2017; 8(3): 107-110.

12.Макиян З.Н., Адамян Л.В., Карабач В.В., Чупрынин В.Д. Новый метод хирургического лечения несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения с помощью внутриматочного манипулятора с желобом. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 2: 104–10. doi: 10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110

13.Малышева А.А., Матухин В.И., Резник В.А., и др. Опыт оперативной коррекции несостоятельности рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения на этапе предгравидарной подготовки Проблемы репродукции. 2018; 24(6): 46-50 https://dx.doi.org/10.17116/repro20182406146

14.Малышева А.А., Матухин В.И., Резник В.А., Рухляда Н.Н., Тайц А.Н., Крылов К.Ю. Эндометриоз в области несостоятельных рубцов на матке после кесарева сечения (клинический случай). Проблемы репродукции. 2021;27(2):51 55.

15.Малышева А.А., Матухин В.И., Рухляда Н.Н., Тайц А.Н., Новицкая Н.Ю. Истонченный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: оценка факторов риска. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 2: 77-83

16.Матухин В. И., Малышева А. А., Рухляда Н. Н., Тайц А. Н., Дворсон А. А., Вопиловская А. П.; ФГБОУ ВО СПбГПМУ Минздрава

https://t.me/medicina_free

75

России. Способ определения локализации истонченного рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Патент RU 2 731 409 C1, МПК A61B 17/42. № 2019132144; Заявка 10.10.2019; Опубликовано 2020.09.02

17.Матухин В.И., Малышева А.А., Резник В.А., Рухляда Н.Н., Тайц А.Н., Крылов К.Ю., Новицкая Н.Ю. Гипотеза формирования несостоятельного рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения как возможного фактора риска развития врастания плаценты. Проблемы репродукции. 2020;26(6):114 121.

18.Мартынов С.А., Адамян Л.В. Рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: терминологические аспекты // Гинекология. - 2020. - Т. 22. - №5. - C. 70-75. doi: 10.26442/20795696.2020.5.200415

19.Ножницева О.Н., Беженарь В.Ф. Комбинированный способ коррекции локальной несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Проблемы репродукции. 2018; 24 (5): 45–52.

20.Приходько А.М., Баев О.Р., Луньков С.С., и др. Возможности методов оценки состояния матки после операции кесарева сечения // Акушерство и гинекология. - 2013. - № 10. - С. 12-16.

21.Пучкова Н.В. Несостоятельный рубец на матке после кесарева сечения: диагностика, тактика ведения, репродуктивный прогноз. Автореф. дис. ... канд. мед. наук. М., 2014.

22.Резник В.А., Малышева А.А., Матухин В.И., Рухляда Н.Н., Тайц А.Н. Оригинальная методика коррекции «ниш» после двух кесаревых сечений. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 2: 179-182

23.Рухляда Н.Н., Крылов К.Ю., Бирюкова Е.И. Возможности органосохраняющих операций при аденомиозе в аспекте сохранения репродуктивной функции. Акушерство и гинекология. 2018; 7: 120-4. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2018.7.120-124

24.Рухляда Н.Н., Крылов К.Ю., Бирюкова Е.И. Органосохраняющие операции при аденомиозе. Акушерство и гинекология. 2019; 5: 86-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.5.86-89

https://t.me/medicina_free

76

25.Рухляда Н.Н., Матухин В.И., Резник В. А., Хамидов В. А.,

Матевосян И. Э., Тайц А. Н. Несостоятельный Рубец На Матке. Пособие для врачей. Санкт-Петербург: Санкт-Петербургский государственный педиатрический медицинский университет Министерства здравоохранения Российской Федерации; 2022, 28 с.

26.Семенюк А.К., Дивакова Т.С. Место кесарева сечения в современном акушерстве. Охрана материнства и детства. 2013; 22 (2): 52-60

27.Синицына С.С., Кравченко Е.Н., Рублева Г.Ф. и др. Естественные Роды у Женщин С Рубцом На Матке. Мать и Дитя в Кузбассе. 2018; 1(72):

64-67

28.Abacjew-Chmylko A, Wydra DG, Olszewska H. Hysteroscopy in the treatment of uterine cesarean section scar diverticulum: A systematic review. Adv Med Sci 2017; 62 (02) 230-239 Doi: 10.1016/j.advms.2017.01.004

29.Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, Farrell B, Gray S, Hardy P, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):234-248.

30.Akdemir A, Sahin C, Ari SA, Ergenoglu M, Ulukus M, Karadadas N. Determination of isthmocele with using a foley catether during laparoscopic repair of caesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25 (01) 21-22 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.05.017

31.Alalfy, M.; Osman, O.M.; Salama, S.; Lasheen, Y.; Soliman, M.; Fikry, M.; Ramadan, M.; Alaa, D.; Elshemy, S.; Abdella, R. Evaluation of the Cesarean Scar Niche In Women With Secondary Infertility Undergoing ICSI Using 2D Sonohysterography Versus 3D Sonohysterography and Setting a Standard Criteria; Alalfy Simple Rules for Scar Assessment by Ultrasound To Prevent Health Problems for Women. Int. J. Womens Health 2020, 12, 965–974.

32. Alonso BD, Silva FMBD, Latorre MDRDO, Diniz CSG, Bick

D. Caesarean birth rates in public and privately funded hospitals: a cross-sectional study. Rev Saude Publica 2017; 51: 101 Doi: 10.11606/S15188787.2017051007054

https://t.me/medicina_free

77

33. Annessi E, Del Giovane C, Magnani L, et al. A modified prediction model for VBAC, in a European population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:435-439.

34. Bakavičiūtė G, Špiliauskaitė S, Meškauskienė A, Ramašauskaitė

D. Laparoscopic repair of the uterine scar defect - successful treatment of secondary infertility: a case report and literature review. Acta Med Litu 2016; 23

(04)227-231 Doi: 10.6001/actamedica.v23i4.3424

35.Bamberg C, Hinkson L, Dudenhausen JW, Bujak V, Kalache KD, Henrich W. Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after singleor double-layer uterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96 (12) 1484-1489 Doi: 10.1111/aogs.13213

36.Baranov A, Gratacós E, Vikhareva O, Figueras F. Validation of the prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery at the university hospital in Barcelona. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30:29983003.

37.Bekiesinska-Figatowska, M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis after Cesarean section: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 11, 75 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00876-5

38. Bennich G, Rudnicki M, Wilken-Jensen C, Lousen T, Lassed

PN, Wojdemann K. Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a Cesarean uterine incision: randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet

Gynecol 2016; 47: 417– 422.

39. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni

MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national

estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 2016; 11 (02) e0148343 Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343

40. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke

JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation

https://t.me/medicina_free

78

Gynecol 2011; 37: 93– 99.

41.Boujenah, J.; Tigaizin, A.; De La Hosseraye, C.; Oldani, E.; Carbillon, L. From cesearean scar dehiscence to large incomplete uterine rupture in the second trimester. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2015, 43, 324–328.

42.Calì, G.; Timor-Tritsch, I.E.; Palacios-Jaraquemada, J.; Monteaugudo,

A.; Buca, D.; Forlani, F.; Familiari, A.; Scambia, G.; Acharya, G.; D’Antonio, F.

Outcome of Cesarean scar pregnancy: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 51, 169–175.

43.Camran Nezhat, Lindsey Grace, Rose Soliemannjad Cesarean scar defect: What is it and how should it be treated? OBG Management. 2016; 28 (4): 32-38.

44.Cecchini, F.; Tassi, A.; Londero, A.P.; Baccarini, G.; Driul, L.; Xodo, S. First Trimester Uterine Rupture: A Case Report and Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2976.

45.Cicinelli E, Matteo M, Tinelli R. , et al. Prevalence of chronic endometritis in repeated unexplained implantation failure and the IVF success rate after antibiotic therapy. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (02) 323-330 Doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu292

46.Cohen, A.; Cohen, Y.; Laskov, I.; Maslovitz, S.; Lessing, J.B.; Many, A. Persistent abdominal pain over uterine scar during labor as a predictor of delivery complications. Inter. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013, 123, 200–202.

47.de Vaate AJMB, Linskens IH, van der Voet LF, Twisk JW, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. 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.

48.Demers S, Roberge S, Bujold E. Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean

Gynecol. 2013;20(4):537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.010

https://t.me/medicina_free

79

49.Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following singlevs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (05) 578-583 Doi: 10.1002/uog.17401

50.Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Calagna G, Giampaolino P, Paolella F, Bifulco G. Hysteroscopic isthmoplasty: step by step technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25 (02) 338-339 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.00

51.Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, et al. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD004732. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004732.pub3

52.Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (01) 289-296.e2 Doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033

53.Dosedla, E.; Calda, P. Can the final sonographic assessment of the cesarean section scar be predicted 6 weeks after the operation? Taiw. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 55, 718–720.

54.Elep, R.V.; Dalawangbayan, A.M.L.F. Evolution of a cesarean scar pregnancy into a placenta accreta at term: A case report. PJOG 2017, 41, 29–36.

55.El-Gharib MN, Awara AM. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar thickness after single versus double layer closure of transverse lower segment cesarean section. J Basic Clin Reprod Sci 2013; 2: 42– 45.

56.Fagerberg MC, Marsal K, Kallen K. Neonatal outcome after trial of labor or elective cesarean section in relation to the indication for the previous cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:1151-1158.

57.Fagerberg MC, Marsal K, Kallen K. Predicting the chance of vaginal delivery after one cesarean section: validation and elaboration of a published prediction model. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;188:88-94

https://t.me/medicina_free

80

58.Feng YL, Li MX, Liang XQ, Li XM. Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(4):498–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.010

59.G. Raimondo, G. Grifone, D. Raimondo, R. Seracchioli, G. Scambia, V. Masciullo Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 22 (2015), pp. 297-301

60.Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH. Impact of caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(7):1943–

52.

61. Guyot-Cottrel A. Essai CHORUS: Comparaison de l'aspect

échographique de la cicatrice de césarienne selon une fermeture utérine en un plan ou en deux plans. Abstract. Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descarte: Paris, 2011.

62.Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016; 65: 1– 15

63.Harb, H.M.; Knight, M.; Bottomley, C.; Overton, C.; Tobias, A.; Gallos, I.D.; Shehmar, M.; Farquharson, R.; Horne, A.; Latthe, P.; et al. Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK: A national cohort study. BJOG 2018, 125, 1663–1670.

64.Haumonte J-B, Raylet M, Christophe M, et al. French validation and adaptation of the Grobman nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47:127-131.

65. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Ekholm-Selling K, Råssjö EB, Jonsson

M. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with singlecompared with doublelayer closure: a Swedish cohort study. BJOG 2015; 122: 1535– 1541.

66. Hongjie Pan, Jian Zhang, Ben W. J. Mol, Reply to: Cesarean scar

defect—A rising concern or a physiological healing process?, Acta Obstetricia et

Gynecologica Scandinavica, 10.1111/aogs.13634, 98, 8, (1078-1079), (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13743

https://t.me/medicina_free

81

67.Indraccolo U, Scutiero G, Matteo M, Mastricci AL, Barone I, Greco P. Correlations between sonographically measured and actual incision site thickness of lower uterine segment after repeated caesarean section. Minerva Ginecol 2015; 67 (03) 225-229

68.Jordans IPM, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri-Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T, Bourne T, Brolmann HAM, Donnez O, Dueholm M, et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(1):107–15.

69. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, de Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt

E. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 132– 139

70.Li C, Guo Y, Liu Y, Cheng J, Zhang W. Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of uterine defects on previous cesarean delivery scars. J Perinat Med 2014; 42 (03) 363-370 Doi: 10.1515/jpm-2013-0081

71.Liu SJ, Lv W, Li W. Laparoscopic repair with hysteroscopy of cesarean scar diverticulum. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 42 (12) 1719-1723 Doi: 10.1111/jog.13146

72.Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar

58.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.012

73.Magnus, M.C.; Wilcox, A.J.; Morken, N.H.; Weinberg, C.R.; Håberg, S.E. Role of maternal age and pregnancy history in risk of miscarriage: Prospective register based study. BMJ 2019, 364, l869.

74.Malik, M.F.; Hoyos, L.R.; Rodriguez-Kovacs, J.; Gillum, J.; Johnson, S.C. Placenta Increta Complicating Persistent Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy following Failed Excision with Subsequent Preterm Cesarean Hysterectomy. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 2016, 4071840.

75.Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai NE. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(5):CD004453.

https://t.me/medicina_free

82

76.Matteo M, Cicinelli E, Neri M. , et al. Pro-inflammatory M1/Th1 type immune network and increased expression of TSG-6 in the eutopic endometrium from women with endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 218: 99105 Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.08.014

77.McLaren, R.; McCalla, S.; Irani, M. Conservative Management of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy with Fetal Heart Activity and a Very High β- hCG. Case Rep. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 2015, 3.

78.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 (10) 1105-1115 Doi:

10.7863/jum.2001.20.10.1105

79.Muraca GM, Sabr Y, Lisonkova S, et al. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality associated with midpelvic operative vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery: a population-based retrospective cohort study. CMAJ 2017;189:E764-72

80.Mylonas I, Friese K: The indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2015; 112: 489–95. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489

81.Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, McIndoe A, et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(3):252259.

82.Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Van Huffel S, Ghaem-Maghami S, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, et al. Does the presence of a caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit? Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1489–96.

83.Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, McIndoe A, et al. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):672-678.

https://t.me/medicina_free

83

84.Nappi L, Pontis A, Sorrentino F, Greco P, Angioni S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus with diode laser: a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 206: 32-35 Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.035

85.Nappi L, Sorrentino F, Angioni S, Pontis A, Greco P. The use of laser in hysteroscopic surgery. Minerva Ginecol 2016; 68 (06) 722-726

86. Nappi L, Sorrentino F, Angioni S, Pontis A, Litta P, Greco

P. Feasibility of hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy using a new dual wavelengths laser system (DWLS): preliminary results of a pilot study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 295 (01) 3-7 Doi: 10.1007/s00404-016-4232-5

87.Nezhat, C.; Falik, R.; Li, A. Surgical management of niche, isthmocele, uteroperitoneal fistula, or cesarean scar defect: A critical rebirth in the medical literature. Fertil. Steril. 2017, 107, 69–71.

88.Nikkels C, Vervoort A, Mol BW, Hehenkamp WJK, Huirne JAF, Brolmann HAM. IDEAL framework in surgical innovation applied on laparoscopic niche repair. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;215:247-253.

89.Overview. Ectopic Pregnancy and Miscarriage: Diagnosis and Initial

Management: Summary of Updated NICE Guidance. Available

online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng126 (accessed on 19 April 2020).

90.Park IY, Kim MR, Lee HN, et al. Risk factors for Korean women to develop an isthmocele after a cesarean section BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018; 18: 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1821-2

91.Parra-Herran C, Djordjevic B. Histopathology of placenta creta: chorionic villi intrusion into myometrial vascular spaces and extravillous trophoblast proliferation are frequent and specific findings with implications for diagnosis and pathogenesis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016; 35(6): 497-508. https://doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0000000000000250

92.Paterson, K.; Odejinmi, F.; Shahid, A. Clinical Dilemmas and Risks of Misdiagnosis and Mismanagement Associated with Endogenous Caesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Case Series and Literature Review. Glob. J. Reprod. Med. 2017, 3, 555602.

https://t.me/medicina_free

M. Sonographic evaluation of surgical repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45 (08) 455-460 Doi: 10.1002/jcu.22449

94.Pomorski, M.; Fuchs, T.; Rosner-Tenerowicz, A.; Zimmer, M. Standardized ultrasonographic approach for the assessment of risk factors of incomplete healing of the cesarean section scar in the uterus. Euro. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016, 205, 141–145.

95.Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D, Seracchioli R, Scambia G, Masciullo V. Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22 (02) 297-301 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.09.011

96.Reiter M, Schwope R. Finding a niche: Magnetic resonance imaging located an often-overlooked source of uterine bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (02) 171.e1-171.e2 Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.002

97.Rheinboldt M, Osborn D, Delproposto Z. Cesarean section scar

E. Impact of singlevs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar

99.Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214(4): 507.e1-507.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.916

100.Schepker N, Garcia-Rocha GJ, von Versen-Höynck F, Hillemanns P, Schippert C. Clinical diagnosis and therapy of uterine scar defects after caesarean section in non-pregnant women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 1417-23.

101.Scioscia M, Iannone P, Morano D, Pontrelli G, Greco P. Comment on

“Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence

and depth in the first two years after singleor double-layer uterotomy closure: a

https://t.me/medicina_free

85

randomized controlled trial”. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97 (05) 629 Doi:

10.1111/aogs.13278

102.Scutiero G, Iannone P, Bernardi G. , et al. Oxidative stress and endometriosis: a systematic review of the literature. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2017; 2017: 7265238 Doi: 10.1155/2017/7265238

103.Setubal A, Alves J, Osório F. , et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouch-like defect at the site of cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25 (01) 38-46 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022

104.Sevket, O.; Ates, S.; Molla, T.; Ozkal, F.; Uysal, O.; Dansuk, R. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on

healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Int. J. Gynaecol.

Obstet. 2014, 125, 219–222.

105.Shao MJ, Hu M. A growing concern: cesarean scar defect and massive uterine bleeding. J Clin Case Rep. 2015;5(9):599-600.

106.Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y, Wang H, Schreiber A, Li X, Tai S, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG. 2011;118(4):410-422.

107.Sholapurkar SL. Can the practice of nonclosure of visceral and parietal peritoneum during cesarean delivery be justified? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):550.

108.Sholapurkar SL. Increased incidence of placenta praevia and accreta with previous caesareans—a hypothesis for causation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(8):806-809.

109.Sholapurkar SL. Surgical techniques at caesarean might modify placenta accreta risk. BJOG. 2015;122(1):143.

110.Simmering J. Inter-ocular trauma test. http://jacobsimmering.com/2016/11/17/uhTickets/.

111.Singh N, Tripathi R, Mala YM, et al. Scar thickness measurement by transvaginal sonography in late second trimester and third trimester in pregnant patients with previous cesarean section: does sequential change in scar thickness

https://t.me/medicina_free

86

with gestational age correlate with mode of delivery? J Ultrasound. 2015;18:173.

doi: 10.1007/s40477-014-0116-3.

112.Sipahi S, Sasaki K, Miller CE. The minimally invasive approach to the symptomatic isthmocele - what does the literature say? A step-by-step primer on laparoscopic isthmocele - excision and repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29 (04) 257-265 Doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000380

113.Stegwee S. I., Jordans I. P. M., van der Voet L. F., et al. Singleversus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development – the 2Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19: 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2221-y

114.Stegwee SI, Jordans I, van der Voet LF, van de Ven PM, Ket J, Lambalk CB, de Groot C, Hehenkamp W, Huirne J. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review

0528.15048.

115.Stegwee SI, Jordans IP, Van Der Voet LF, Bongers MY, De Groot CJ, Lambalk CB, De Leeuw RA, Hehenkamp WJ, Van De Ven PM, Bosmans JE, Pajkrt E. Single-versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development—the 2close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2221-y.

116.Stupak, A.; Kondracka, A.; Fronczek, A.; Kwa´sniewska, A. Scar Tissue after a Cesarean Section—The Management of Different Complications in Pregnant Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11998. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph182211998

117.Suarez Salvador E, Haladjian MC, Bradbury M. , et al. Laparoscopic isthmocele repair with hysteroscopic assistance. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25 (04) 576-577 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.005

https://t.me/medicina_free

87

118.Sumigama S, Sugiyama C, Kotani T, Hayakawa H, Inoue A, Mano Y, Tsuda H, et al. Uterine sutures at prior caesarean section and placenta accreta in subsequent pregnancy: a case-control study. BJOG. 2014;121(7):866-874; discussion 875.

119.Szkodziak Piotr, SteRpniak Anna, Czuczwar Piotr Is it necessary to correct a caesarean scar defect before a subsequent pregnancy? A report of three cases Journal of International Medical Research 2019, Vol. 47(5) 2248–2255

120.Tel. Cesarean or cesarean epidemic? Arch Iran Med. 2019;22(11):663–670.

121.The CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010;117(11):13661376.

122.The CORONIS Collaborative Group CORONIS - International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: the follow-up study BMC Pregnancy and Childbirthvolume 13. 2013; Article number: 215 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471- 2393-13-215

123.Thomas Bergholt, Finn E. Skjeldestad, Aura Pyykönen et al. Maternal age and risk of cesarean section in women with induced labor at term—A Nordic register-based study. 2020; 99 (2): 283-289

124.Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Santos R, Tsymbal T, Pineda G, Arslan AA. The diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cesarean scar pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):44 e41-13.

125.Timor-Tritsch, I.E.; Monteagudo, A.; Calì, G.; D’Antonio, F.; Kaelin

Agten, A. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. 2019, 46, 797–811.

126. Tower AM, Frishman GN. Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J

572.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.03.008

127.Tsai HF, Song HL, Chen WC, Chang CM, Chang CH, Lee IW. Delayed uterine rupture occurred 4 weeks after cesarean section following sexual

https://t.me/medicina_free

88

intercourse: a case report and literature review. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol.

2013;52(3):411-414.

128.Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (06) 893-902 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.020

129.Urman B, Arslan T, Aksu S, Taskiran C. Laparoscopic repair of

cesarean scar defect “isthmocele”. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (06) 857-

858 Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.012

130.Vachon-Marceau, C.; Demers, S.; Bujold, E.; Roberge, S.; Gauthier, R.J.; Pasquier, J.-C.; Girard, M.; Chaillet, N.; Boulvalin, M.; Jastrow, N. Single versus double-layer uterine closure at cesarean: Impact on lower uterine segment thickness at next pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 217, 65.e1–65.e5.

131.van der Voet L, Vervoort A, Veersman S. BijdeVaate A, Brolmann H, Huirne J. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the cesarean scar: a systematic review. BJOG 2014; 121: 145-156 Doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12537

132.van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG. 2014;121(2):236-244.

133.van der Voet LLF, Limperg T, Veersema S. , et al. Niches after cesarean section in a population seeking hysteroscopic sterilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 214: 104-108 Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.05.004

134.Vervoort A, van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp W, et al. Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual

135. Vervoort A, Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Brölmann H, Huirne J. The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on

https://t.me/medicina_free

89

symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study.

BJOG 2018; 125 (03) 317-325 Doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14822

136.Vervoort A.J.M.W., Uittenbogaard L.B., Hehenkamp W.J.K. et. al, Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development, Human Reproduction, Volume 30, Issue 12, December 2015, Pages 2695–2702,

137.Vissers, J.; Hehenkamp, W.; Lambalk, C.B.; Huirne, J.A. PostCaesarean section niche-related impaired fertility: Hypothetical mechanisms. Hum. Reprod. 2020, 35, 1484–1494.

138.Wang C-J, Huang H-J, Chao A, et al. Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar

22.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.10.016

139.Wong WS, Fung WT. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cesarean scar defect. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2018;7:104-7

140.World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Sex Reprod Health. 2015;02:1–8 (WHO/RHR/15.02).

141.Woźniak A, Pyra K, Rio Tinto H, Woźniak S: Ultrasonographic

criteria of cesarean scar defect evaluation. J Ultrason 2018; 18: 162–165.

142. Xodo S, Saccone G, Cromi A, Ozcan P, Spagnolo E, Berghella

V. Cephalad-caudad versus transverse blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision during cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 202: 75– 80

143.Yasmin S, Sadaf J, Fatima N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat cesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011; 21: 522– 526.

144.Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q, Chen J, Ding J, Hua K. Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 134 (03) 336-339 Doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.04.011

https://t.me/medicina_free

90

145. Zilberman A, Sharf M, Polishuk WZ. Evaluation of cesarean section

scar by hysterography. Obstet Gynecol 1968; 32 (02) 153-157

https://t.me/medicina_free