Abstract
Aim:
To compare smooth muscle cells, type I collagen, and apoptosis of the lower uterine segment of women who had/without a prior cesarean delivery.
Methods:
Alpha smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), type I collagen, and nuclear apoptosis were compared between the groups from lower uterine segment. Twenty-eight controls and 82 with one prior cesarean delivery were included. The women with a prior cesarean section were classified by time since the surgery: ≤3 years, >3 and ≤5 years, >5 and ≤7 years, >7 and ≤9 years, and >9 years.
Results:
Smooth muscle volume density (VD) % was significantly lower in women who had cesarean sections in first three groups than in the controls (all, P<0.01). Type I collagen VD% was similar among all groups and the controls. The number of apoptotic nuclei in the lower uterine segment of the scarred group was greater up to 3 years after surgery and less than in the control at 7–9 years. The number of non-apoptotic nuclei in the scarred group was greater than controls up to 7 years after surgery.
Conclusion:
The lower uterine segment scar becomes stable at 3 years after cesarean delivery, and by 9 years, the scar is mature.
Author’s statement
Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Material and methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The research related to human subject use has complied with all the relevant national regulations, and institutional policies, and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.
Funding: This work was supported by Guangdong Science and Technology project (grant numbers 2014A020212215).
References
[1] Hasbargen U, Summerer-Moustaki M, Hillemanns P, Scheidler J, Kimmig R, Hepp H. Uterine dehiscence in a nullipara, diagnosed by MRI, following use of unipolar electrocautery during laparoscopic myomectomy: case report. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2180–2.10.1093/humrep/17.8.2180Search in Google Scholar
[2] Burrington JD. Wound healing in the fetal lamb. J Pediatr Surg. 1971;6:523–8.10.1016/0022-3468(71)90373-3Search in Google Scholar
[3] Stoff A, Rivera AA, Mathis JM, Moore ST, Banerjee NS, Everts M, et al. Effect of adenoviral mediated overexpression of fibromodulin on human dermal fibroblasts and scar formation in full-thickness incisional wounds. J Mol Med (Berl). 2007;85:481–96.10.1007/s00109-006-0148-zSearch in Google Scholar
[4] Liu W, Chua C, Wu X, Wang D, Ying D, Cui L, et al. Inhibiting scar formation in rat wounds by adenovirus-mediated overexpression of truncated TGF-beta receptor II. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:860–70.10.1097/01.PRS.0000153037.12900.45Search in Google Scholar
[5] Reid RR, Roy N, Mogford JE, Zimmerman H, Lee C, Mustoe TA. Reduction of hypertrophic scar via retroviral delivery of a dominant negative TGF-beta receptor II. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:64–72.10.1016/j.bjps.2005.12.026Search in Google Scholar
[6] Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brölmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2695–702.10.1093/humrep/dev240Search in Google Scholar
[7] Uharček P, Brešťanský A, Ravinger J, Máňová A, Zajacová M. Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment thickness at term in women with previous cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292:609–12.10.1007/s00404-015-3687-0Search in Google Scholar
[8] Brahmalakshmy BL, Kushtagi P. Variables influencing the integrity of lower uterine segment in post-cesarean pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291:755–62.10.1007/s00404-014-3455-6Search in Google Scholar
[9] Bérubé L, Arial M, Gagnon G, Brassard N, Boutin A, Bujold E. Factors associated with lower uterine segment thickness near term in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33:581–7.10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34906-4Search in Google Scholar
[10] Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, et al. Changes in cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:556–62.10.1002/uog.12334Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Shen H, Shen Z. Practical living organism visualization technology. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Publishing; 1991. pp. 64–198.Search in Google Scholar
[12] Pollio F, Staibano S, Mascolo M, Salvatore G, Persico F, De Falco M, et al. Uterine dehiscence in term pregnant patients with one previous cesarean delivery: growth factor immunoexpression and collagen content in the scarred lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:527–34.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.048Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Roeder HA, Cramer SF, Leppert PC. A look at uterine wound healing through a histopathological study of uterine scars. Reprod Sci. 2012;19:463–73.10.1177/1933719111426603Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[14] Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, Madri JA, Buhimschi IA. Myometrial wound healing post-cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol. 2010;177:197–207.10.2353/ajpath.2010.091209Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[15] Martin P. Wound healing: aiming for perfect skin regeneration. Science. 1997;276:75–81.10.1126/science.276.5309.75Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[16] Werner S, Grose R. Regulation of wound healing by growth factors and cytokines. Physiol Rev. 2003;83:835–70.10.1152/physrev.2003.83.3.835Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Steenfos HH. Growth factors and wound healing. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1994;28:95–105.10.3109/02844319409071186Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] Wang L, Tai NZ, Fan ZH. [Effect of botulinum toxin type A on the expression of substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide, transforming growth factor beta-1 and alpha smooth muscle actin A in wound healing in rats]. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009;25:50–3.Search in Google Scholar
[19] Lee WJ, Park BY. The subcutaneous capsules for foreign body in fetal rabbits: preliminary report. Yonsei Med J. 2001;42: 595–601.10.3349/ymj.2001.42.6.595Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[20] Shah MG, Maibach HI. Estrogen and skin. An overview. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2:143–50.10.2165/00128071-200102030-00003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[21] Emmerson E, Hardman MJ. The role of estrogen deficiency in skin ageing and wound healing. Biogerontology 2012;13:3–20.10.1007/s10522-011-9322-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[22] Ashcroft GS, Ashworth JJ. Potential role of estrogens in wound healing. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4:737–43.10.2165/00128071-200304110-00002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[23] Singer AJ, Clark RAF. Cutaneous wound healing. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:738–46.10.1056/NEJM199909023411006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[24] Gallant CL, Olson ME, Hart DA. Molecular, histologic, and gross phenotype of skin wound healing in red Duroc pigs reveals an abnormal healing phenotype of hypercontracted, hyperpigmented scarring. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12:305–19.10.1111/j.1067-1927.2004.012311.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[25] Akasaka Y, Fujita K, Ishikawa Y, Asuwa N, Inuzuka K, Ishihara M, et al. Detection of apoptosis in keloids and a comparative study on apoptosis between keloids, hypertrophic scars, normal healed flat scars, and dermatofibroma. Wound Pepair Regen. 2001;9:501–6.10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00501.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[26] Cheng B, Fu XB, Sun TZ, Sheng ZY. Apoptosis and expression of Caspase-3/8 in hypertrophic scar. Infect Inflamm Rep. 2005;6:71–4.Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
