Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2586-3568
Original Article

Analysis of Hysterotomy Extension at Unscheduled Cesarean Delivery

Jason G. Bunn
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
2   Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas
,
Albert Tang
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Kristen Warncke
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
2   Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas
,
Saron Gilazgi
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Donald D. Mcintire
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
David B. Nelson
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
2   Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas
,
Catherine Y. Spong
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
2   Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas
,
J. Seth Hawkins
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
2   Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to determine if the rate of hysterotomy extensions increases with increasing cervical dilation in unscheduled cesarean deliveries, and to develop a measure of the severity of hysterotomy extension for quantifying morbidity.

Study Design

This is a retrospective study of unscheduled cesarean deliveries relating to labor dystocia and/or nonreassuring tracings from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. Severe extension was defined as bilateral or adjacent to a structure such as the uterine artery, broad ligament, or cervix, and was compared with uterine artery extensions alone.

Results

There were 990 unscheduled cesarean deliveries included. Extensions (n = 233) significantly increased with increasing cervical dilation (p < 0.0001), complicating more than 30 and 50% at 6 and 10 cm of cervical dilation, respectively. Apart from this trend, a logistic regression analysis indicated cervical dilation was an independent risk factor for extension. Transfusions of at least 2 units of blood were five times (26 vs. 5%) more likely for patients with severe extensions than no extension (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Hysterotomy extensions significantly increase with increasing cervical dilation, and cervical dilation is an independent risk factor for extension. A composite measure of severity accounts for different types of extension when quantifying morbidity, but uterine artery extension is the primary driver of maternal morbidity in cases without hysterectomy.

Key Points

  • We report higher than previously published rates of extension, in our study of unscheduled cesareans.

  • Extension rates rise with cervical dilation—33% at 6 cm, over 50% at 10 cm.

  • Cervical dilation is an independent risk factor for extension.

  • Severe extensions were fivefold more likely to be transfused two units than no extension.

  • The composite measure for severity was driven by uterine artery extensions.

Keywords

cesarean morbidity - hysterotomy extension - labor dystocia - second stage arrest

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 01 January 2025

Accepted: 13 April 2025

Article published online:
06 May 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 ACOG Clinical Practice. First and second stage labor management: ACOG clinical practice guideline no. 8. Obstet Gynecol 2024; 143 (01) 144-162
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bligard KH, Durst JK, Stout MJ. et al. Risk factors and maternal morbidity associated with unintentional hysterotomy extension at the time of cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (10) 1054-1059
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Karavani G, Chill HH, Reuveni-Salzman A. et al. Risk factors for uterine incision extension during cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (11) 2156-2161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Giugale LE, Sakamoto S, Yabes J, Dunn SL, Krans EE. Unintended hysterotomy extension during caesarean delivery: risk factors and maternal morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 38 (08) 1048-1053
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM. Eds. Normal labor and delivery. In: Williams Obstetrics. 26th ed.. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM. Eds. Labor induction. In: Williams Obstetrics. 26th ed.. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Satin AJ, Leveno KJ, Sherman ML, Brewster DS, Cunningham FG. High- versus low-dose oxytocin for labor stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80 (01) 111-116
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Worley KC, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The prognosis for spontaneous labor in women with uncomplicated term pregnancies: implications for cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (04) 812-816
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Relationship of the length of the first stage of labor to the length of the second stage. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 27-32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. First and second stage labor management. Clinical Practice Guideline 2024; 143 (08) 144-162
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM. Eds. Cesarean Delivery and Peripartum Hysterectomy. In: Williams Obstetrics. 26th ed.. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Martin A, Nzelu D, Briley A, Tydeman G, Shennan A. A comparison of technicques to disimpact the fetal head on a second stage caesearean simulator. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022; 22 (01) 34
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Di Girolamo R, Galliani C, Buca D, Liberati M, D'Antonio F. Outcomes of second stage cesarean section following the use of a fetal head elevation device: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 262: 1-6
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lassey SC, Little SE, Saadeh M. et al. Cephalic elevation device for second-stage cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (04) 879-884
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Leveno KJ, Nelson DB, McIntire DD. Second-stage labor: how long is too long?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (04) 484-489
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Meinert M, Malmström A, Petersen AC, Eriksen GV, Uldbjerg N. Chorioamniontis in preterm delivery is associated with degradation of decorin and biglycan and depletion of hyaluronan in fetal membranes. Placenta 2014; 35 (08) 546-551
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Vilchez G, Nazeer S, Kumar K, Warren M, Dai J, Sokol RJ. Contemporary epidemiology and novel predictors of uterine rupture: a nationwide population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296 (05) 869-875
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar