Correlation between Blood Glucose Levels on Niche Incidence after Cesarean Section

A. F. S. Desy Handayani; Makmur Sitepu; Iman Helmi  Effendi; Edwin Martin  Asroel; Binarwan  Halim; Riza  Rivany; Edy  Ardiansyah

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2023.11029

Authors

A. F. S. Desy Handayani Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3950-6626
Makmur Sitepu Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia
Iman Helmi Effendi Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia
Edwin Martin Asroel Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia
Binarwan Halim Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia
Riza Rivany Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia
Edy Ardiansyah Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H. Adam Malik, Medan, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2023.11029

Keywords:

Cesarean section, Niche, Blood glucose

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Long-term sequelae of cesarean section (CS) is formation of niche in CS surgical scar. Blood glucose involved in wound healing process after CS.

AIM: This study was to find correlation of blood glucose level with niche in CS patients.

METHODS: This research was an observational and analytic study with case series design conducted at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universitas Sumatera Utara, RSUP H Adam Malik Medan, and Sundari Hospital Medan Starting from July to August 2022. To assess correlation between variables, eta test was used to assess the correlation of blood glucose with incidence of niche. The analysis results were said to be significant if p < 0.05, with 95% CI.

RESULTS: Mean of patients were in 21–29 years (70%), multiparity with 12 patients (40%), aterm gestational age with 30 patients (100%), 16 patients (53.3%) with anteflexion uterus, previous CS 2 times were the majority with 9 patients (30%), and 17 patients (56.7%) were elective CS. Incidence of niche was 63.3%. Triangular were the most found niche with 11 patients (36.7%). Mean of total myometrial thickness, depth of niche, and residual myometrial thickness were 5.23 ± 11.2 mm, 2.44 ± 2.75 mm, and 5.23 ± 11.22 mm, respectively. Mean blood sugar level was 103.3 ± 17.4 mg/dl. From eta analysis, there was no correlation between blood glucose levels post-CS patients using eta test with p = 0.872.

CONCLUSION: There was no significant correlation between blood glucose levels on niche incidence in post-CS patients.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Biccard BM, Madiba TE, Kluyts HL, Munlemvo DM, Madzimbamuto FD, Basenero A, et al. Perioperative patient outcomes in the African surgical outcomes study: A7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet. 2018;391(10130):1589-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30001-1 PMid:29306587 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30001-1

Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6 PMid:26093498 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6

Ye J, Betrán AP, Vela MG, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth. 2014;41(3):237-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12104 PMid:24720614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12104

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(2):e0148343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 PMid:26849801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343

Bhandari AK, Dhungel B, Rahman M. Trends and correlates of cesarean section rates over two decades in Nepal. 2020. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:763. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03453-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03453-2

Aminu M, Utz B, Halim A, van den Broek N. Reasons for performing a caesarean section in public hospitals in rural Bangladesh. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-130 PMid:24708738 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-130

Oner C, Catak B, Sütlü S, Kilinç S. Effect of social factors on cesarean birth in Primiparous women: a cross sectional study (social factors and cesarean birth). Iran J Public Health. 2016;45(6):768-73. PMid:27648420

Stegwee SI, Beij A, Leew R, Mokkink L, Voet L, Huirne JAF. Niche Related Outcomes After Caesarean Section and Quality of Life: A Focus Group Study and Review of Literature. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2019

Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following cesarean section: Systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):372-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13199 PMid:23996650

Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scar? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(12):2695-702. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev240 PMid:26409016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev240

Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. Cesarean section scar defects: Agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(1):75-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7496 PMid:20034000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7496

Vervoort AJ, Van der Voet LF, Witmer M, Thurkow AL, Radder CM, van Kesteren PJ, et al. The HysNiche trial: Hysterocsopic resection of uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in patients with abnormal bleeding, a randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0260-8 PMid:26563197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0260-8

Antila-Langsjö RM, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala HS, Tomás EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: A prospective study on risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(5):458.e1-458.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.004 PMid:30240650

Kamel HH. The value of using platelet rich plasma during caesarian section toenhance wound healing in diabetic women. Int J Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;4(6):203-6. https://doi.org/10.15406/ipcb.2018.04.00127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/ipcb.2018.04.00127

Labgaa I, Joliat GR, Kefleyesus A, Mantziari S, Schäfer M, Demartines N, et al. Is postoperative decrease of serum albumin an early predictor of complications after major abdominal surgery? A prospective cohort study in a European centre. BMJ Open. 2017;7(4):e013966. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013966 PMid:28391235 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013966

Plock JA, Rafatmehr N, Sinovcic D, Schnider J, Sakai H, Tsuchida E, et al. Hemoglobin vesicles improve wound healing and tissue survival in critically ischemic skin in mice. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2009;297(3):H905-10. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00430.2009 PMid:19574491 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00430.2009

Al Naimi A, Wolnicki B, Mouzakiti N, Reinbach T, Louwen F, Bahlmann F. Anatomy of the sonographic post-cesarean uterus. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;304(6):1485-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06074-y PMid:33891206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06074-y

Jordans IP, de Leeuw RA, Stegwee SI, Amso NN, Barri-Soldevila PN, van den Bosch T, et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: A modified delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(1);107-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19049 PMid:29536581 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19049

De Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, et al. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following cesarean section: Systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):372-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13199 PMid:23996650 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13199

Stegwee SI, Beij A, de Leeuw RA, Mokkink LB, van der Voet LF, Huirne JA. Nicherelated outcomes after caesarean section and quality of life: A focus group study and review of literature. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(4):1013-25 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02376-6 PMid:31845165 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02376-6

Van der Voet LF, Jordans IP, Brölmann HA, Veersema S, Huirne JA. Changes in the uterine scar during the first year after a caesarean section: A prospective longitudinal study. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2018;83(2):164-70. https://doi.org/10.1159/000478046 PMid:28957798 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000478046

Abdelfattah EA, El Dayem TM, Galal HM, Taylon SS. Gynecological outcomes of uterine niche after cesarean section: A descriptive study. J Reprod Healthc Med. 2021;2:5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25259/JRHM_31_2020

Bandry KW, Abou-Taleb H, Seifeldein GS, Taha MG, Qenawy OK. Prediction of the relationship of cesarean section scar niche and postmenstrual spotting: is there any relation? Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2022;53:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-022-00699-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-022-00699-y

Alalfy M, Osman OM, Salama S, Lasheen Y, Soliman M, Fikry M, et al. 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. 2020:12:965-74 https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S267691 PMid:33177887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S267691

Naji O, Abdallah Y, De Vaate AJ, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C, et al. Standardized approach for imaging and measuring cesarean section scar using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(3):252-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10077 PMid:21858885 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10077

Van der Voet LF, de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Longterm 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):236-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12542 PMid:24373597 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12542

De Vaate AJ, Brolmann HA, van der Voet LF, Slikke JW, Veersema S, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the cesarean scar: Relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):93-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8864 PMid:21031351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8864

He YL, Ding N, Li Y, Li Z, Xiang Y, Jin ZY, et al. Cyclic changes of the junctional zone on 3 T MRI images in young and middle-aged females during the menstrual cycle. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(4):341-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.12.005 PMid:26787068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.12.005

Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Lambalk CB, Huirne JA. Post caesarean section niche-related impaired fertility: Hypothetical mechanisms. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(7):1484-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa094 PMid:32613231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa094

Van der Voet LF, Vervoort AJ, Veersema S, BijdeVaate AJ, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA. Minimally invasive therapy for gynaecological symptoms related to a niche in the caesarean scar: A systematic review. BJOG. 2014b;121(2):145-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12537 PMid:24373589 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12537

Sardo AD, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of cesarean scar defect following single-vs double-layer uterine closure: Systematic review and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(5):578-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17401 PMid:28070914 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17401

Stegwee SI, Jordans I, van der Voet LF, van de Ven PM, Ket J, Lambalk CB, et al. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: Asystematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125(9):1097-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15048 PMid:29215795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15048

Antilla-Langsjo RM, Maenpaa JU, Huhtala HS, Tomas EI, Staff SM. Cesarean scar defect: A prospective study on risk factor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(5):458.e1-458.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.004 PMid:30240650 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.004

Inoue H, Ishikawa K, Takeda K, Kobayashi A, Kurita K, Kumagai J, et al. Postpartum risk of diabetes and predictive factors for glucose intolerance in East Asian women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;140:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.03.031 PMid:29596944

Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):90-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6395 PMid:19499514

Benjamin E, Winters D, Mayfield J, Gohdes D. Diabetes in pregnancy in Zuni Indian women: prevalence and subsequent development of clinical diabetes after gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1993;16:1231–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.16.9.1231

Inoue H; Ishikawa K; Takeda K; Kobayashi A; Kurita K; Kumagai J; et al. Postpartum risk of diabetes and predictive factors for glucose intolerance in East Asian women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2018; 140: 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2018.03.031

Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section Scar at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:90–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6395