Causes of development, clinical picture of ectopic pregnancy in the “niche” of the uterine scar after cesarean section

Torobaeva M.T.; Buyanova S.N.; Logutova L.S.; Petrakova S.A.; Yudina N.V.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20252503157

Torobaeva M.T.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-8947-6325

Buyanova S.N.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-1358-6640

Logutova L.S.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-6313-655X

Petrakova S.A.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-8811-3450

Yudina N.V.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-7305-6959

Causes of development, clinical picture of ectopic pregnancy in the “niche” of the uterine scar after cesarean section

Authors:

Torobaeva M.T., Buyanova S.N., Logutova L.S., Petrakova S.A., Yudina N.V.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2025;25(3): 57‑64

DOI: 10.17116/rosakush20252503157

Read: 395 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Torobaeva MT, Buyanova SN, Logutova LS, Petrakova SA, Yudina NV. Causes of development, clinical picture of ectopic pregnancy in the “niche” of the uterine scar after cesarean section. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2025;25(3):57‑64. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/rosakush20252503157

Подписка 2026 Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога (Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk factors for the development of ectopic pregnancy in the uterine scar “niche” (URN) after cesarean section (CS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Factor analysis of pregnancy in the uterine scar “niche” after CS in 43 patients (main group) was carried out within the framework of the study. The control group consisted of 37 patients with pregnancy in the uterine cavity (n=15) and patients (n=22) with a post-CS uterine scar without signs of anatomical failure.

RESULTS

A high risk of pregnancy formation in the uterine scar “niche” was found in 33-37 years old patients with an incompetent uterine scar, who had a history of CS performed 1 year ago or less, chronic endometritis, intrauterine surgeries within the first 1—2 years after CS, 2 CS and more with an interval between them of less than 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Patients with operated uterus have a high probability of repeated abdominal delivery, which increases the area of the scar on the anterior wall of the uterus, contributing to implantation of the fetal egg in the scar projection. The very existence of a uterine scar is a risk factor for pregnancy development in the uterine scar, and against the background of scar failure, the risk of pregnancy development in the scar niche is significantly increased.

Keywords:

risk factors of pregnancy development in uterine scar

nonspecificity of clinical symptoms

Authors:

Torobaeva M.T.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-8947-6325

Buyanova S.N.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-1358-6640

Logutova L.S.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-6313-655X

Petrakova S.A.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-8811-3450

Yudina N.V.

V.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Scientific Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology

ORCID: 0000-0002-7305-6959

Received:

03.01.2024

Accepted:

23.01.2024

Close metadata

References:

Clinical guidelines Ectopic pregnancy. 2024. Approved by the Scientific and Practical Council of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. (In Russ.). https://g-academy.ru/sites/default/files/2024-12/cr_4.pdf
Tang P, Li X, Li W, Li Y, Zhang Y, Yang Y. The trend of the distribution of ectopic pregnancy sites and the clinical characteristics of caesarean scar pregnancy. Reprod Health. 2022;19:182.
Tang Q, Qin Y, Zhou Q, Tang J, Zhou Q, Qiao J, Shu C, Dai X, Zhang J. Hysteroscopic treatment and reproductive outcomes in cesarean scar pregnancy: experience at a single institution. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:6:1559-1566.
Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Calì G, D’Antonio F, Kaelin Agten A. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Pathogenesis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2019;46:4:797-811.
Fowler ML, Little S, Muto M, Mahalingaiah S. Mid-trimester cesarean scar pregnancy: a case report. Fertil Res and Pract. 2021;7:10.
Calì G, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Monteaugudo A, Buca D, Forlani F, Familiari A, Scambia G, Acharya G, D’Antonio F. Outcome of Cesarean scar pregnancy managed expectantly: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:2:169-175.
Onwonga L, Thapa S, Ochin H, et al. Causes, assessment and management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Int J Pregn Chi Birth. 2017;2:5:119-124.
Silva B, Viana Pinto P, Costa MA. Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A systematic review on expectant management. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;288:36-43.
Bohiltea R, Ducu I, Mihai B, Iordache AM, Dorobat B, Vladareanu EM, Iordache SM, Bohiltea AT, Bacalbasa N, Grigorescu CEA, Varlas V. Uterine artery embolization combined with subsequent suction evacuation as low-risk treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11:12:2350.
Kaelin Agten A, Cali G, Monteagudo A, Oviedo J, Ramos J, Timor-Tritsch I. The clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” versus “in the niche”. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:5:510.e1-510.e6.
Davydov AI, Shakhlamova MN. An undiagnosed case of cesarean scar pregnancy. Gynecol, Obstet Perinatol. 2019;18:6:106-107.
D’Antonio F, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Lim PS, Forlani F, Lanzone A, Timor-Tritsch I, Cali G. Counseling in fetal medicine: evidence-based answers to clinical questions on morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47:3:290-301.
Kurtser MA, Breslav IYu, Kolotilova ML, Barykina OP, Skryabin NV, Kurbatskaya ON. Non-developing pregnancy in the uterine scar after cesarean section: diagnostic difficulties. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya. 2023;2:160-164. (In Russ.).
Luo L, Ruan X, Li C, Chen S, Hu Q, Mueck AO. Early clinical features and risk factors for cesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective case-control study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:4:337-341.
Zikopoulos A, Loukopoulos T, Galani A, Kechagias K, Skentou C, Zikopoulos K, Kolibianakis E. Methotrexate treatment of very high β-HCG ectopic pregnancy on previous cesarean scar: A case report. Radiol Case Rep. 2023;18:11:4106-4109.
Ammar A, Nasrallah F, Adan H, Ali J, Mussa M, Fazari A, Alsawalhee N. Medical management of cesarean scar pregnancy at Latifa Hospital Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, UAE. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;10:526-537.
Gerday A, Lourtie A, Pirard C, Laurent P, Wyns C, Jadoul P, Squifflet JL, Dolmans MM, Van Gossum JP, Hammer F, Luyckx M. Experience with medical treatment of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (CSEP) with local ultrasound-guided injection of methotrexate. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:564764.
Saravelos SH, Wong AW, Chan CP, Kong GW, Li TC. How often does the embryo implant at the location to which it was transferred? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:1:106-112.
Pirtea L, Balint O, Secoşan C, Grigoraş D, Pirtea P. Case Report: Laparoscopic isthmocele repair on an 8 weeks pregnant uterus. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:831588.
Szkodziak P, Stępniak A, Czuczwar P, Szkodziak F, Paszkowski T, Woźniak S. Is it necessary to correct a caesarean scar defect before a subsequent pregnancy? A report of three cases. J Int Med Res. 2019;47:5:2248-2255.
Velipasaoglu M, Arslan S. Management of caesarean scar pregnancy with ultrasound guided suction curettage followed by foley balloon catheter placement. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2022;51:10:102471.
Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Van Huffel S, Ghaem-Maghami S, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T. 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;28:6:1489-1496.
Ben-Nagi J, Walker A, Jurkovic D, Yazbek J, Aplin JD. Effect of cesarean delivery on the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106:1:30-34.
Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Liu X, Zhang L, Hong F, Lu M. Risk factors for massive hemorrhage during the treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303:2:321-328.
Gui T, Peng P, Liu X, Jin L, Chen W. Clinical and ultrasound parameters in prediction of excessive hemorrhage during management of cesarean scar pregnancy. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:807-812.
Gull B, Klerelid V, Jormeus A, Strandell A. Potential risk factors for caesarean scar pregnancy: a retrospective case-control study. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021:2:hoab019.
Wang C, Wei Y, Liang HM, Zhao YY, Guo HY, Li R, Qiao J. Clinical risk factors of cesarean scar pregnancies. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2022;102:32:2495-2499.
Shah JS, Nasab S, Papanna R, Chen HY, Promecene P, Berens P, Johnson A, Bhalwal A. Management and reproductive counseling in cervical, caesarean scar and interstitial ectopic pregnancies over 11 years: identifying the need for a modern management algorithm. Hum Reprod Open. 2019;4:hoz028.
Mwalwanda CS, Black KI. Immediate post-partum initiation of intrauterine contraception and implants: a review of the safety and guidelines for use. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53:4:331-337.