Influencing factors of uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in patients with scarred uterus after cesarean section

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2023.05.011

Objective

To investigate the influencing factors of uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in patients with cesarean scar uterus (SUAC).

Methods

A total of 105 patients with SUAC who underwent vaginal delivery in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Suzhou Municipal Hospital from January 2015 to December 2022 were selected as research subjects. According to whether SUAC patients experienced uterine rupture during vaginal delivery, they were divided into uterine rupture group (n=26) and non-uterine rupture group (n=79). Independent-samples t test or chi-square test was used to compare the age, gestational age, gravidity, interval between current pregnancy and previous cesarean section, prenatal body mass index (BMI), uterine scar thickness, proportion of suture method of previous cesarean section incision, incidence of pregnancy complications, and incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes of mother and infant between two groups. Combined with previous research results and clinical experience, multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis was further performed to analyze the independent influencing factors of uterine rupture in SUAC patients undergoing vaginal delivery. The procedures followed in this study were in accordance with the regulations of the Ethics Committee of Suzhou Municipal Hospital and were reviewed and approved by this Ethics Committee (Approval No. 2022326).

Results

①Among 105 SUAC patients who underwent vaginal delivery, the incidence of uterine rupture was 24.8% (26/105). The age, gravidity, proportion of prenatal BMI ≥30 kg/m^2, proportion of uterine scar thickness < 3 mm, and proportion of single layer suture of previous cesarean section incision in uterine rupture group were significantly higher than those in non-uterine rupture group, and interval between current pregnancy and previous cesarean section was significantly shorter than that in non-uterine rupture group, and all the differences were statistically significant (t=4.19, P<0.001; t=3.16, P=0.002; χ²=7.07, P=0.008; χ²=13.56, P<0.001; χ²=12.69, P<0.001; t=7.60, P<0.001). ②Results of multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis showed that uterine scar thickness < 3 mm, and single layer suture of previous cesarean section incision were independent risk factors for uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in SUAC patients (OR=2.343, 95%CI: 1.361-4.032, P=0.002; OR=1.857, 95%CI: 1.124-3.067, P=0.015), and long interval between current pregnancy and previous cesarean section was its independent protective factor (OR=0.243, 95%CI: 0.097-0.607, P=0.002). ③The total incidence of adverse maternal and infant outcomes in uterine rupture group was 34.6% (9/26), which was significantly higher than 5.1% (4/79) in non-uterine rupture group, and the difference was statistically significant (χ²=15.75, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Thin uterine scar thickness and single layer suture of previous cesarean section incision are independent risk factors for uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in patients with SUAC, while long interval between current pregnancy and previous cesarean section is its independent protective factor. Clinical attention should be paid to such SUAC patients with thin uterine scar thickness, single layer suture of previous cesarean section incision, and short interval between current pregnancy and previous cesarean section, in order to reduce the risk of uterine rupture.

Key words: Cesarean section, Vaginal birth after cesarean, Uterine rupture, Scarred uterus, Birth intervals, Pregnancy outcome, Risk factors, Pregnant women

表1 SUAC患者再次妊娠选择阴道分娩发生子宫破裂影响因素的单因素分析

组别	例数	分娩年龄(岁，±s)	分娩孕龄(周，±s)	孕次(次，±s)	产前BMI[例数(%)]		是否临产入院[例数(%)]
组别	例数	分娩年龄(岁，±s)	分娩孕龄(周，±s)	孕次(次，±s)	<30 kg/m²	≥30 kg/m²	是	否
子宫破裂组	26	33.4±4.2	39.2±1.3	3.6±1.2	8(30.8)	18(69.2)	15(57.7)	11(42.3)
非子宫破裂组	79	29.8±3.7	39.6±1.3	2.8±0.9	48(60.8)	31(39.2)	32(40.5)	47(59.5)
统计量		t＝4.19	t＝1.14	t＝3.16	χ²＝7.07		χ²＝2.34
P值		<0.001	0.256	0.002	0.008		0.126
组别	例数	子宫瘢痕厚度[例数(%)]		定期产检[例数(%)]		本次妊娠距离前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间(年，±s)	妊娠期并发症[例数(%)]
组别	例数	<3 mm	≥3 mm	是	否	本次妊娠距离前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间(年，±s)	是	否
子宫破裂组	26	20(76.9)	6(23.1)	12(46.2)	14(53.8)	2.1±0.4	9(34.6)	17(65.4)
非子宫破裂组	79	28(35.4)	51(64.6)	46(58.2)	33(41.8)	3.1±0.6	40(50.6)	39(49.4)
统计量		χ²＝13.56		χ²＝1.15		t＝7.60	χ²＝2.02
P值		<0.001		0.283		<0.001	0.156
组别	例数	前次剖宫产术切口缝合方式[例数(%)]		新生儿出生体重(kg，±s)	前次剖宫产术分娩指征[例数(%)]
组别	例数	单层	双层	新生儿出生体重(kg，±s)	胎位不正	阴道试产失败中转剖宫产术分娩	无剖宫产术分娩指征
子宫破裂组	26	21(80.8)	5(19.2)	3.5±0.4	11(42.3)	9(34.6)	6(23.1)
非子宫破裂组	79	32(40.5)	47(59.5)	3.4±0.4	29(36.7)	32(40.5)	18(22.8)
统计量		χ²＝12.69		t＝1.50	χ²＝0.34
P值		<0.001		0.136	0.846

表1 SUAC患者再次妊娠选择阴道分娩发生子宫破裂影响因素的单因素分析

组别	例数	分娩年龄(岁，±s)	分娩孕龄(周，±s)	孕次(次，±s)	产前BMI[例数(%)]		是否临产入院[例数(%)]
组别	例数	分娩年龄(岁，±s)	分娩孕龄(周，±s)	孕次(次，±s)	<30 kg/m²	≥30 kg/m²	是	否
子宫破裂组	26	33.4±4.2	39.2±1.3	3.6±1.2	8(30.8)	18(69.2)	15(57.7)	11(42.3)
非子宫破裂组	79	29.8±3.7	39.6±1.3	2.8±0.9	48(60.8)	31(39.2)	32(40.5)	47(59.5)
统计量		t＝4.19	t＝1.14	t＝3.16	χ²＝7.07		χ²＝2.34
P值		<0.001	0.256	0.002	0.008		0.126
组别	例数	子宫瘢痕厚度[例数(%)]		定期产检[例数(%)]		本次妊娠距离前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间(年，±s)	妊娠期并发症[例数(%)]
组别	例数	<3 mm	≥3 mm	是	否	本次妊娠距离前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间(年，±s)	是	否
子宫破裂组	26	20(76.9)	6(23.1)	12(46.2)	14(53.8)	2.1±0.4	9(34.6)	17(65.4)
非子宫破裂组	79	28(35.4)	51(64.6)	46(58.2)	33(41.8)	3.1±0.6	40(50.6)	39(49.4)
统计量		χ²＝13.56		χ²＝1.15		t＝7.60	χ²＝2.02
P值		<0.001		0.283		<0.001	0.156
组别	例数	前次剖宫产术切口缝合方式[例数(%)]		新生儿出生体重(kg，±s)	前次剖宫产术分娩指征[例数(%)]
组别	例数	单层	双层	新生儿出生体重(kg，±s)	胎位不正	阴道试产失败中转剖宫产术分娩	无剖宫产术分娩指征
子宫破裂组	26	21(80.8)	5(19.2)	3.5±0.4	11(42.3)	9(34.6)	6(23.1)
非子宫破裂组	79	32(40.5)	47(59.5)	3.4±0.4	29(36.7)	32(40.5)	18(22.8)
统计量		χ²＝12.69		t＝1.50	χ²＝0.34
P值		<0.001		0.136	0.846

表2 SUAC患者再次妊娠选择阴道分娩发生子宫破裂影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果

影响因素	B	SE	Wald值	P值	OR值	OR值95%CI
子宫瘢痕厚度<3 mm(以子宫瘢痕厚度≥3 mm为对照)	0.851	0.277	9.448	0.002	2.343	1.361～4.032
本次妊娠距离前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间(连续变量)	1.414	0.467	9.176	0.002	0.243	0.097～0.607
前次剖宫产术切口缝合方式为单层(以前次剖宫产术切口缝合方式为双层为对照)	0.618	0.256	5.845	0.015	1.857	1.124～3.067
分娩孕龄(连续变量)	0.522	0.415	1.587	0.207	1.687	0.748～3.805
产前BMI≥30 kg/m²(以产前BMI<30 kg/m²为对照)	0.757	0.548	1.908	0.167	2.132	0.728～6.241
孕次(连续变量)	1.157	0.645	3.221	0.727	3.182	0.898～11.265

表2 SUAC患者再次妊娠选择阴道分娩发生子宫破裂影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果

影响因素	B	SE	Wald值	P值	OR值	OR值95%CI
子宫瘢痕厚度<3 mm(以子宫瘢痕厚度≥3 mm为对照)	0.851	0.277	9.448	0.002	2.343	1.361～4.032
本次妊娠距离前次剖宫产术分娩间隔时间(连续变量)	1.414	0.467	9.176	0.002	0.243	0.097～0.607
前次剖宫产术切口缝合方式为单层(以前次剖宫产术切口缝合方式为双层为对照)	0.618	0.256	5.845	0.015	1.857	1.124～3.067
分娩孕龄(连续变量)	0.522	0.415	1.587	0.207	1.687	0.748～3.805
产前BMI≥30 kg/m²(以产前BMI<30 kg/m²为对照)	0.757	0.548	1.908	0.167	2.132	0.728～6.241
孕次(连续变量)	1.157	0.645	3.221	0.727	3.182	0.898～11.265

表3 2组SUAC患者母婴不良妊娠结局发生情况比较[例数(%)]

组别	例数	产后出血	新生儿窒息	前置胎盘	胎儿窘迫	合计
子宫破裂组	26	4(15.4)	1(3.8)	2(7.7)	2(7.7)	9(34.6)
非子宫破裂组	79	2(2.5)	1(1.3)	0(0)	1(1.3)	4(5.1)
χ²值		—	—	—	—	15.75
P值		—	—	—	—	<0.001

表3 2组SUAC患者母婴不良妊娠结局发生情况比较[例数(%)]

组别	例数	产后出血	新生儿窒息	前置胎盘	胎儿窘迫	合计
子宫破裂组	26	4(15.4)	1(3.8)	2(7.7)	2(7.7)	9(34.6)
非子宫破裂组	79	2(2.5)	1(1.3)	0(0)	1(1.3)	4(5.1)
χ²值		—	—	—	—	15.75
P值		—	—	—	—	<0.001

[1]	Ma H, Qiao Z. Analysis of the efficacy of resveratrol treatment in patients with scarred uterus[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2018, 15(6): 5410-5414. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2018.6126.
[2]	Wei D, Qian X, Hong Y, et al. Effect of midwife intervention coupled with acupressure on the vaginal delivery rate and negative emotion in parturients with scarred uterus re-pregnancy[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2021, 13(8): 9429-9436.
[3]	Tammo O, Uyanikoglu H, Koyuncu İ. Evaluation of plasma free amino acid and carnitine levels in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Comb Chem High Theroughput Screen, 2021, 24(9): 1436-1445. DOI: 10.2174/1386207323666201019151530.
[4]	Xie RH, Guo X, Li M, et al. Risk factors and consequences of undiagnosed cesarean scar pregnancy: a cohort study in China[J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2019, 19(1): 383. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2523-0.
[5]	甘艳琼，陈朝霞，石琪，等. 二孩政策后剖宫产率及剖宫产指征的变化[J]. 中国妇幼健康研究，2020, 31(2): 209-212. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5293.2020.02.015.
[6]	靳瑾，王志坚. 子宫破裂的常见原因及预防[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志，2022, 38(8): 787-791. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2022080106.
[7]	马新刚，于迎春，孟颜颜，等. 利用有限元分析预警经阴道分娩瘢痕子宫破裂风险[J]. 医用生物力学，2021, 36(1): 92-95. DOI: 10.16156/j.1004-7220.2021.01.015.
[8]	Habeř D, Střecha M, Kalousek I, et al. Uterine rupture during pregnancy[J]. Ceska Gynecol, 2019, 84(5): 345-350.
[9]	中华医学会妇产科学分会计划生育学组．剖宫产术后子宫瘢痕妊娠诊治专家共识(2016) [J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2016, 51(8): 568-572. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2016.08.003.
[10]	曹泽毅. 中华妇产科学[M]. 2版. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2004: 838-841.
[11]	中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组. 剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道分娩管理的专家共识(2016)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2016, 51(8): 561-564. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2016.08.001.
[12]	刘喆，杨慧霞，辛虹，等. 全国多中心子宫破裂现状调查及结局分析[J]. 中华妇产科杂志，2019, 54(6): 363-368. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2019.06.002.
[13]	Tanos V, Toney ZA. Uterine scar rupture - Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2019, 59: 115-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.01.009.
[14]	何志华，蒋艳敏，王子莲. 合理促进瘢痕子宫再次妊娠阴道分娩[J]. 实用妇产科杂志，2019, 35(3): 188-191.
[15]	ACOG Practice bulletin No.115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 116(2Pt1): 450-463. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251.
[16]	洪凡，龚景进，黄楚君，等. 瘢痕子宫妊娠早产经阴道分娩的可行性与安全性[J]. 实用妇产科杂志，2020, 36(1): 72-74.
[17]	郑文惠，季晓菲，杨艳贞. 瘢痕子宫产妇中晚孕期子宫破裂的危险因素和助产预案的研究[J]. 中国妇幼保健，2019, 34(6): 1271-1273. DOI: 10.7620/zgfybj.j.issn.1001-4411.2019.06.20.
[18]	Andonovová V, Hruban L, Gerychová R, et al. Uterine rupture during pregnancy and delivery: risk factors, symptoms and maternal and neonatal outcomes - restrospective cohort[J]. Ceska Gynekol, 2019, 84(2): 121-128.
[19]	杨建成，邱剑萍，朱利平，等. 高频超声实时监测瘢痕厚度和形态预判剖宫产术后再次妊娠阴道试产子宫破裂的临床价值[J]. 中国妇幼保健，2022, 37(19): 3665-3669. DOI: 10.19829/j.issn.1001-1411.2022.19.047.
[20]	孙荣荣，金雅芳，顾颖，等. 瘢痕子宫再次妊娠分娩发生子宫破裂的危险因素分析[J].中国妇幼健康研究，2021, 32(11): 1553-1557. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5293.2021.11.001.
[21]	Swift BE, Shah PS, Farine D. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2019, 98(7): 830-841. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13585.
[22]	何伟，冯丹，罗剑儒. 瘢痕子宫患者孕期发生子宫破裂的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2020, 16(4): 423-429. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2020.04.008.
[23]	朱婷婷，龚云辉. 剖宫产术后阴道分娩产妇的临床分析[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 17(3): 333-338. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2021.03.015.
[24]	孙燕，付玉静，翟建军. 妊娠晚期子宫破裂14例分析[J]. 发育医学电子杂志，2017, 5(4): 248-252.

[1]	Jingyu Qian, Mingming Zheng. Interpretation of the Italian guidelines on non-invasive and invasive prenatal diagnosis：executive summary of recommendations for practice the Italian Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology（SIGO）[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 486-492.
[2]	Xialin Li, Fang He. Risk assessment and early warning system for postpartum hemorrhage[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 498-503.
[3]	Ziyang Liu, Jianjian Cui, Yin Zhao. Current research status on obstetric disseminated intravascular coagulation and its scoring system[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 511-518.
[4]	Fanying Zeng, Jie Ruan, Xinghui Liu, Guolin He. Current status of perinatal medicine advances under the new reproductive situation and coping strategies in prenatal care[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 519-524.
[5]	Xiaofei Li, Hongli Liu, Qiuling Shi, Jing Tian, Li Li, Hongbo Qi, Xin Luo. A prospective randomized controlled study of low intensity focused ultrasound uterine involution treatment for prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage in natural childbirth women[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 534-539.
[6]	Rong Huang, Ziyu Liang, Wenjin Qi. Expression and significance of NLRP3 inflammasome in serum of pregnant women with premature rupture of membranes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 540-548.
[7]	Xia He, Rong Huang, Wenjin Qi. High-throughput sequencing study on the abundance of placenta and fetal membrane flora in pregnant women with premature rupture of membranes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 549-555.
[8]	Jiangyan Xie, Yafei Wang, Fang He. Pregnancy complicated with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura：two cases report and literature review[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 556-563.
[9]	Wenbin Luo, Wei Han. Analysis of risk factors related to moderate to severe myelosuppression in patients with pancreatic cancer after first chemotherapy and construction of prediction model[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 357-362.
[10]	Bin He, Jinfeng Ma. Risk factors for splenic hilar lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(06): 694-699.
[11]	Kai Lin, Yong Pan, Gaoping Zhao, Chun Yang. Analysis of risk factors and prevention strategy of incisional hernia after stoma reduction surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(06): 634-638.
[12]	Chuang Yang, Xue Ma. Analysis of risk factors for postoperative infection of abdominal wall hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(06): 693-696.
[13]	Huiying Chen, Minshan Qiu, Hanquan Shao. Construction and application effect of risk factor model for intestinal mucosal barrier function damage induced by sepsis[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 14(05): 448-452.
[14]	Shirui Yan, Hui Xiong. Identification of risk factors for acute kidney injury in patients with infective endocarditis and prediction of death risk in such patients with acute kidney injury[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(07): 618-624.
[15]	Wenzhe Li, Yi Wang, Jian Cui, Qihang Zheng, Jingyan Wang, Xiangyou Yu. Critically ill patients with acute renal dysfunction in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region：A crosssection study[J]. Chinese Journal of Hygiene Rescue(Electronic Edition), 2024, 10(05): 269-276.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export