Does the presence of a Caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit?

OBJECTIVE

Are there any differences in the location and distance to the internal cervical ostium of the implantation site of the intrauterine gestation sacs, early pregnancy symptoms and pregnancy outcome at 12 weeks gestation between women with and without a previous Caesarean section (CS)?

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a CS scar affects the site of implantation, and the distance between implantation site and the scar is related to the risk of spontaneous abortion. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: Little is known about the impact of a CS scar on implantation other than the risk of Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Furthermore, there is a paucity of information on how the proximity of implantation to the scar impacts on pregnancy outcome in the first trimester.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study conducted over 15 months in the early pregnancy unit of a London Teaching Hospital. Three hundred and eighty women underwent a transvaginal scan at 6-11 weeks of gestation. A total of 170 women had undergone ≥1 CS, and 210 women had no history of CS.

METHODS

The 380 women were recruited as consecutive non-selected cases. The relationship between the implanted sac and the CS scar was assessed by quantifiable measures and by subjective impression. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the influence of the presence of a CS scar on pregnancy outcome. The final outcome of the study was the viability of the pregnancy at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Implantation was most frequently posterior (53%) in the CS group and fundal in the non-CS group (42%). Gestation sac implantation was 8.7 mm lower in the CS group (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.7-10.7, P < 0.0001). Presenting complaints differed in women with and without a previous CS (P = 0.0009). More frequent vaginal bleeding [73 versus 55%, difference -18, 95% CI (-27 to -8%] yet no clearly increased spontaneous abortion rates were noted in the CS group compared with the non-CS group (adjusted odds ratio = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-1.9, P = 0.74). Subjective impression showed that in eight cases the implantation site crossed the scar, seven of which resulted in spontaneous abortion, while the remaining case survived to term complicated by placenta praevia and post-partum haemorrhage. The subjective impression of the examiner was supported by the measurements of distance between implantation site and CS scar.

CONCLUSIONS

A weakness of the study is the lack of a reference technique to verify the location of implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds further support to the hypothesis that the presence of a CS on the uterus impacts on the implantation site of a future pregnancy. The possibility that the CS scar has an impact on the risk of spontaneous abortion should be further studied. Caution must be exercised when implantation occurs near to, and crosses, a CS scar as this is not always associated with the diagnosis of CSP. A potential limitation of the study is that we did not examine scar dimensions and morphology.