Risk Factors and Maternal Morbidity Associated with Unintentional Hysterotomy Extension at the Time of Cesarean Delivery

Abstract

Objective Our aim was to estimate the incidence of unintentional hysterotomy extension at the time of cesarean delivery and to identify associated risk factors and maternal morbidity.

Study Design We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial evaluating chlorhexidine-alcohol versus iodine-alcohol for skin antisepsis in women undergoing cesarean delivery. We included patients with a low transverse hysterotomy. The primary outcome was the incidence of unintentional hysterotomy extension. Logistic regression was performed to identify independent factors associated with hysterotomy extension. Maternal morbidity was compared between patients with and without extension.

Results Of 1,038 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 71 (6.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4–8.5%) experienced a hysterotomy extension. Of several potential risk factors assessed, the second stage of labor was the only independent predictor of hysterotomy extension (adjusted odds ratio: 10.2; 95% CI: 2.6–39.8). Hysterotomy extension was associated with increased operative time (73 vs. 55.3 minutes; p< 0.01), need for blood transfusion (relative risk: 5; 95% CI: 1.6–15.2), and rate of additional surgical injury (RR: 17; 95% CI: 6.9–41.8).

Conclusion Hysterotomy extensions are not infrequent at the time of cesarean delivery and are associated with increased maternal morbidity. Cesarean delivery during the second stage of labor is the main independent risk factor for hysterotomy extension.

Keywords

maternal morbidity - surgical complications - hysterotomy extension - cesarean delivery

• References

• 1 de la Torre L, González-Quintero VH, Mayor-Lynn K. , et al. Significance of accidental extensions in the lower uterine segment during cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (05) e4-e6
• 2 Sung JF, Daniels KI, Brodzinsky L, El-Sayed YY, Caughey AB, Lyell DJ. Cesarean delivery outcomes after a prolonged second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (03) 306.e1-306.e5
• 3 Lurie S, Raz N, Boaz M, Sadan O, Golan A. Comparison of maternal outcomes from primary cesarean section during the second compared with first stage of labor by indication for the operation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 182: 43-47
• 4 Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Siesto G, Loverro G, Bolis P. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (03) 292.e1-292.e6
• 5 Saad AF, Rahman M, Costantine MM, Saade GR. Blunt versus sharp uterine incision expansion during low transverse cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (06) 684.e1-684.e11
• 6 Jeve YB, Navti OB, Konje JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2016; 123 (03) 337-345
• 7 Berhan Y, Berhan A. A meta-analysis of reverse breech extraction to deliver a deeply impacted head during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124 (02) 99-105
• 8 Veisi F, Zangeneh M, Malekkhosravi S, Rezavand N. Comparison of “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012; 118 (01) 4-6
• 9 Bergholt T, Stenderup JK, Vedsted-Jakobsen A, Helm P, Lenstrup C. Intraoperative surgical complication during cesarean section: an observational study of the incidence and risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82 (03) 251-256
• 10 Naef III RW, Chauhan SP, Chevalier SP, Roberts WE, Meydrech EF, Morrison JC. Prediction of hemorrhage at cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83 (06) 923-926
• 11 Moroz L, DiNapoli M, D'Alton M, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Surgical speed and risk for maternal operative morbidity in emergent repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (04) 584.e1-584.e6
• 12 Smid MC, Kearney MS, Stamilio DM. Extreme obesity and postcesarean wound complications in the maternal-fetal medicine unit cesarean registry. Am J Perinatol 2015; 32 (14) 1336-1341
• 13 Stamilio DM, Scifres CM. Extreme obesity and postcesarean maternal complications. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (2 Pt 1): 227-232
• 14 Dotters-Katz SK, Feldman C, Puechl A, Grotegut CA, Heine RP. Risk factors for post-operative wound infection in the setting of chorioamnionitis and cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (10) 1541-1545
• 15 Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ. , et al. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (07) 647-655
• 16 Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Bufkin L, Field K, Roberts WE, Martin Jr JN. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2002; 109 (04) 448-452
• 17 Barrier BF, Allison JL, Andelin CO, Drobnis EZ. A simple device prevents hysterotomy extensions during cesarean delivery for failed second stage of labor. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013; 76 (02) 90-94
• 18 Koyama S, Tomimatsu T, Kanagawa T, Sawada K, Tsutsui T, Kimura T. Cervical insufficiency following cesarean delivery after prolonged second stage of labor: experiences of two cases. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010; 36 (02) 411-413
• 19 Vyas NA, Vink JS, Ghidini A. , et al. Risk factors for cervical insufficiency after term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (03) 787-791
• 20 Wood SL, Tang S, Crawford S. Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor and the risk of subsequent premature birth. Am J Obstet Gyneco l 2017; 217 (01) 63.e1-63.e10