Clinical Medicine Insights: Case Reports (Mar 2023)

Intra-operative Diagnosis of Lower Segment Scar Dehiscence in a Second Gravida After One Previous Lower Segment Cesarean Section: Should We Advocate for Routine Antenatal Uterine Scar Thickness Testing?

  • George Uchenna Eleje,
  • Gerald Okanandu Udigwe,
  • Chigozie Geoffrey Okafor,
  • Tobechi Kingsley Njoku,
  • Chukwuemeka Chukwubuikem Okoro,
  • Chukwudubem Chinagorom Onyejiaka,
  • Emeka Philip Igbodike,
  • Onyeka Chukwudalu Ekwebene,
  • Ekeuda Uchenna Nwankwo,
  • Perpetua Chinedu Okolie,
  • Emmanuel Chukwubuikem Egwuatu,
  • John Chukwuebuka Nkesi,
  • Obinna Carl Okafor,
  • Chidimma Maryvianny Okeke,
  • Divinefavour Echezona Malachy,
  • Ogechi Odinakachukwu Dimgba,
  • Nwabueze Chidozie Okeke,
  • Kenechukwu Chukwudum Okeke,
  • Bernard Kachi Nwadili,
  • Harrison Chiro Ugwuoroko,
  • Casmir Chukwudi Madubuko,
  • Lambert Chukwu Onyejiaku

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/11795476231164379
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16

Abstract

Read online

Background: Uterine dehiscence is a separation of uterine musculature with intact uterine serosa. It can be encountered at the time of cesarean delivery, suspected on obstetric ultrasound or diagnosed in-between pregnancies. The antenatal diagnosis may occasionally elude the Obstetricians. This particular case demonstrates an intra-operative diagnosis of uterine dehiscence with missed antenatal ultrasound diagnosis in an asymptomatic woman. Case presentation: She was a 32-year-old Nigerian second gravida who booked for antenatal care at 32 weeks of gestation following a referral from her attending Obstetrician from a neighboring state due to relocation. She had 3 antenatal visits and 2 antenatal ultrasound investigations without uterine scar thickness report. She subsequently had elective Cesarean section (CS) at a gestational age of 38 weeks plus 2 days due to persistent breech presentation on a background of a previous lower segment CS scar. There was no previous uterine curettage prior to or after the previous lower segment CS scar and there was no labor pains prior to the elective CS. The surgery was successful with intra-operative findings of moderate intra parietal peritoneal adhesions with rectus sheath and obvious uterine dehiscence along the line of the previous CS scar. The fetal outcomes were normal. Immediate post-operative condition was satisfactory and the woman was discharged on a third-day post operation. Conclusion: Obstetricians are charged to maintain a high index of suspicion when managing pregnant women with history of emergency CS in order to avert the adverse consequences of uterine rupture from asymptomatic uterine dehiscence. Based on this report, it may be useful to routinely assess the lower uterine segment scar of women with previous emergency CS using the available ultrasound facilities. However, more studies are needed before advocating for routine antenatal uterine scar thickness testing following emergency lower segment CS in low and middle-income settings.