Uterine Dehiscence and Subsequent Pregnancy Management: A Review of the Literature.

IMPORTANCE: Uterine dehiscence is a separation of the uterine musculature with intact uterine serosa. Uterine dehiscence can be encountered at the time of cesarean delivery, be suspected on obstetric ultrasound, or be diagnosed in between pregnancies. Management is a conundrum for obstetricians, regardless of timing of onset. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search was undertaken by our research librarian using the search engines PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. The search term used was "uterine dehiscence." The search was limited to the English language, and there was no limit on the years searched. RESULTS: The search identified 152 articles, 32 of which are the basis for this review. Risk factors, treatment, and management in subsequent pregnancies are discussed. The number of prior cesarean deliveries is the greatest risk factor for uterine dehiscence. Unrepaired uterine dehiscence can cause symptoms outside of pregnancies and may require repair for alleviation of these symptoms. Dehiscence should also be repaired prior to subsequent pregnancies. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Planned delivery prior to the onset of labor with careful monitoring of maternal symptoms is the preferred management strategy of women with prior uterine dehiscence. Careful attention should be paid to the lower uterine segment thickness when ultrasonography is performed in women with prior cesarean delivery. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An evidence-based review of uterine dehiscence in pregnancy and how to manage subsequent pregnancies following uterine dehiscence.

What is the Impact of Abnormal Amniotic Fluid Volumes on Perinatal Outcomes in Normal Compared with At-Risk Pregnancies?

OBJECTIVE: Assessing amniotic fluid volume is an integral part of obstetric practice. Data are sparse on at-risk pregnancy and amniotic fluid volumes. The aim of our study was to determine if there is a difference in perinatal outcomes based on complications of pregnancy and amniotic fluid volumes. We hypothesized that at-risk pregnancies with abnormal amniotic fluid volumes would have worse perinatal outcomes than normal pregnancies with abnormal amniotic fluid volumes. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study evaluated both normal and at-risk singleton pregnancies with intact membranes on admission for delivery. Amniotic fluid volumes were estimated using both the amniotic fluid index (AFI) and single deepest pocket (SDP) techniques. All sonograms were performed by trained ultrasound technicians or obstetrician/gynecologists. We placed 3365 women into 6 separate groups (at-risk versus normal, then further stratified by oligohydramnios by SDP, normal fluid, or polyhydramnios by AFI). RESULTS: At-risk pregnancies with normal fluid and at-risk pregnancies with polyhydramnios have significantly increased risk of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission [OR 2.06 (95% CI 1.63,2.60), OR 2.74 (95% CI 1.54, 4.87)]. Birthweight is significantly higher in at-risk and normal pregnancies with polyhydramnios than those with normal pregnancies and normal fluid (p<0.0001). Birthweight is significantly lower in at-risk pregnancies with oligohydramnios (p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in need for amnioinfusion in labor, variables or lates influencing delivery, meconium staining, or umbilical artery pH <7.1. CONCLUSION: Our study attempted to further define risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes by defining the pregnancy as normal or at-risk and amniotic fluid volumes. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find an increased risk of many of the adverse perinatal outcomes we studied amongst at-risk pregnancies with abnormal fluid. There was an increased risk of NICU admission associated with polyhydramnios in normal and at-risk pregnancies.