American Journal of Public Health Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-669X ISSN (Online): 2327-6703 Website: Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Public Health Research. 2015, 3(5A), 178-181
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-3-5A-37
Open AccessResearch Article

Ultrasound Evaluation of Uterine Scar in Primary Caesarean Section: A Study of Single versus Double Layer Uterine Closure

Pravin Shrestha1, , Smita Shrestha1 and Merina Gyawali2

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal

2Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal

Pub. Date: October 28, 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Scenario 2015; Millennium Development Goals)

Cite this paper:
Pravin Shrestha, Smita Shrestha and Merina Gyawali. Ultrasound Evaluation of Uterine Scar in Primary Caesarean Section: A Study of Single versus Double Layer Uterine Closure. American Journal of Public Health Research. 2015; 3(5A):178-181. doi: 10.12691/ajphr-3-5A-37


Caesarean section is one of the common surgical procedures to deliver baby done worldwide in obstetric practice. The aim of the study was to determine if technique of uterine closure had an effect on scar thickness measured by Ultrasonography at 6 week safter primary cesarean delivery. The Prospective study was done in department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal. Fifty patients undergoing primary caesarean section were randomly assigned to one or double layer closure of lower uterine segment. Patients were followed up by ultrasonography at 6 weeks postpartum and uterine scar was measured. The mean scar thickness measured after 6 weeks by ultrasonography in single layer closure was 15.10 mm (Standard deviation 1.31) whereas it was 15.36 mm (Standard deviation 1.38) in double layer closure of uterus. There was no statistically significant difference in scar thickness after 6 weeks post partum period in single and double layer closure of lower uterine segment.

caesarean section single and double layer uterine closure scar thickness

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Mutihir JT, Daru PH, Ujah IA. Elective Caesarean Sections at the Jos University Teaching Hospital. Trop. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005; 22 (1): 39-41.
[2]  Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1607-17.
[3]  Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87: 215-9.
[4]  Lopes T, Spirtos N, Naik R, Monaghan JM. Caesarean section. In: Monaghan JM, Lopes T, Naik R, editors. Bonney's gynaecological surgery. 11th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 136-45.
[5]  Menacker F. Trends in caesarean rates for first births and repeat caesarean rates for low risk women: United States 1990-2003. Natl Vital stat Rep 2005; 54:1-8.
[6]  Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P et al. Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;102:120-6.
[7]  Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; CD004732.
[8]  Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1267-78.
[9]  Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 311-4.
[10]  Koutsougeras G, Karamanidis D, Chimonis G, Gottas N, Polydorou A, Elmazis Ch, et al. Evaluation during early puerperium of low transverse incision after caesarean section through vaginal ultrasonography. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2003; 30: 245-7.
[11]  Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in caesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34:90-7.
[12]  Wang CB, Chiu WWC, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Caesarean scar defect correlation between Caesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34:85-9.
[13]  Suzuki S, Sawa R, Yoneyama Y, Asakura H, Araki T. Preoperative diagnosis of dehiscence of the lower uterine segment in patients with a single previous Caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 40: 402-4.
[14]  Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, Yoshimura S, Miyamura T, Ishimaru T. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 596-600.
[15]  Tischendorf D. The single-layer uterine suture in cesarean section. A comparative Study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1987; 47: 117-20.
[16]  Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 1108-11.
[17]  Jelsema RD, Wittingen JA, van der Kolk KJ. Continuous, nonlocking, single-layer repair of the low transverse uterine incision. J Reprod 1993; 38: 393-6.
[18]  Iankov M. Single-layer or double-layer suturing of the uterine incision in cesarean section? Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 1999;38:10-3.
[19]  Tucker JM, Hauth JC, Hodgkins P et al. Trial of labor after a one or two-layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:545-6.
[20]  Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-layer closure of alow transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:16-8.
[21]  Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:1326-30.
[22]  Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:43-50.
[23]  Sathian B, Sreedharan J, Baboo NS, Sharan K, Abhilash ES, Rajesh E. Relevance of Sample Size Determination in Medical Research. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 1 (1):4-10.
[24]  Dumont A, de Bernis L, Bouvier-Colle MH, BrĂ©art G, MOMA study group. Caesarean section rate for maternal indication in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Lancet 2001; 358:1328-33.
[25]  Murray SF, Pradenas FS. Health sector reform and rise of caesarean birth in Chile. Lancet 1997;349:64.
[26]  Pai M, Sundaram P, Radhakrishnan KK, Thomas K, Muliyil JP. A high rate of caesarean sections in an affluent section of Chennai: Is it cause for concern? Natl Med J India 1999;12:156-8.
[27]  Caesarean sections. Post note No 184. London: Parliamentary office of Science and Technology; 2002. Available from:
[28]  Chhetri S, Singh U. Caesarean section: its rates and indication at a tertiary referral centre in eastern Nepal. Nepjol; 2011: Vol 9 (No.3); 179-183.
[29]  Guise JM, Hashima J, Osterweil P. Evidence-based vaginal birth after Caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 19:117-30.
[30]  Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: Its influence in the management of patients with previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;87:39-45.
[31]  EL-Gharib MN, Awara AM. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar thickness after single versus double layer closure of transverse lower segment cesarean section. J Basic Clin Reprod Sci 2013;2:42-45.
[32]  Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial of oneand twolayer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:808-13.
[33]  Enkin MW, Wilkinson C. Single versus two layer suturing for closing the uterine incision at Caesarean section (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software