Author Information
Qureshi Shabnam*, Gupta AS**
(* Asst Professor, ** Professor. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M Hospital, Mumbai, India.)
Abstract
Uterine rupture during pregnancy is an obstetric emergency. It is most
commonly associated with a scar on the uterus followed by multiparous patients
with inadvertent use of oxytocics or obstructed labor. In primigravidas,
upper segment uterine rupture is rare. In our case, the patient had fundal
rupture in first pregnancy during labor followed by spontaneous fundal rupture
at 29 weeks in second pregnancy.
Introduction
The uterine rupture during pregnancy is a catastrophic entity resulting
in maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. In patients with previous
lower segment cesarean
sections, the risk of uterine rupture is estimated up to 1%.[1,2]
However, uterine rupture at the site of previous iatrogenic perforation
which is spontaneously healed or repaired is less reported. We present a case
of uterine rupture occurring twice in the same patient, once detected after a
term instrumental delivery and second presently in the third trimester of antenatal period.
Case report
A 35 years old woman, G2P1IUFD1, married for 14 years with 29 weeks of
gestation presented with pain in abdomen and vaginal bleeding with soakage of
one pad. There was history of diagnostic hystero-laparoscopy
done 10 years back [no papers available]. The patient conceived with treatment.
At term in the first pregnancy at another hospital, the patient had pregnancy
induced hypertension (PIH) with intrauterine fetal death (IUFD). Labor
was induced with PGE2
gel and she had a term outlet forceps delivery. Immediately following the
forceps birth the omentum presented out of the os and vagina. Emergency
exploratory laparotomy was done. There was a transverse tear on the fundus, 4
cm in length. The edges were not bleeding and it appeared to be an old rupture.
There was a hemoperitoneum of only 100-150 cc. The tear was sutured in 3
layers. Postoperative course was uneventful. In this pregnancy, the patient had
regular antenatal checkup at another clinic. On presentation to us the
patient’s general condition was fair, vital parameters were stable, and mild
pallor was present. On abdominal examination, the uterus was 28 weeks and
tonically contracted. Fetal heart sounds were absent. There was an infra-umbilical
vertical scar. On vaginal examination, os was closed and bleeding was present.
Blood was sent for investigations, grouping and cross matching. Ultrasonography
(USG) showed a 27 weeks IUFD with low lying placenta. Clinically a uterine
rupture was suspected and patient and relatives were counseled. Consent for
exploratory laparotomy with suturing of the uterine rent and subtotal
hysterectomy if required was obtained. Emergency exploratory laparotomy was
done. A hemoperitoneum of 200 ml with 100 g clots was present. A female fetus
of 1.12 kg was lying in the peritoneal cavity. A transverse fundal rupture of 4
cm was noted . The placenta had separated and was in the process of expulsion into the
peritoneal cavity. The fetus and placenta were removed. The
uterus contracted. There was no active bleeding from the uterine rent.
Adhesions between posterior surface of uterus and intestines were seen and they required
adhesiolysis. Bilateral tubes and ovaries were normal. Subtotal hysterectomy was done as the rupture
edge was ragged and it was recurrent rupture in the upper segment.
Figure1:
Subtotal hysterectomy specimen. Fundal rupture is seen with ragged edges.
The patient was given 4 units of fresh frozen plasma and four units of blood
transfusions. Postoperative course was uneventful. She was discharged on
postoperative day 6.
Discussion
Lower segment uterine scars tend to give way in labor and the upper
segment scars during pregnancy. The second common cause is myomectomy scars.[3] Scar of previous
uterine perforation which occurs as a complication of minimally invasive
procedures such as hysteroscopy, dilatation and curettage and others is not
even considered as a minor cause of uterine rupture during pregnancy.[4]
The risk of uterine rupture depends on the location of
the scar. The general risk for the rupture of an upper segment scar is 4% to
19%.[1] Uterine perforation is one of the most frequent
complications of operative hysteroscopy, with an incidence of 0.7-3%. Uterine
perforations occur most frequently during operative hysteroscopic procedures -
mainly adhesiolysis, followed by myomectomy and septum resection, but can also occur
during insertion of the hysteroscope.[5,6] We propose that her
uterus must have been injured primarily during the hystero-laparoscopy
procedure or with an accompanying dilatation and curettage 10 years ago even
though no operative records are available for the same. This site in the upper
segment most likely healed inadequately with fibrosis. She managed to carry her
first pregnancy to term. The scar probably gave way in the antenatal period
rather than during induction of labor resulting in a pre-induction IUFD. This
hypothesis is based on the operative notes stating that the rupture edges
appeared old and they were not freshly bleeding. The repeat rupture occurred
spontaneously at 28 weeks. Literature has documented that upper segment
scars rupture in antenatal period remote from labor. Her second pregnancy
rupture behaved similarly. These scars rupture in a quiet uterus. The factors
that may affect wound healing like method used for myometrial hemostasis and to
close the myometrial defect, an actively contracting and retracting upper
segment, the extent of local tissue destruction, the presence of infection or
hematoma formation, individual healing characteristics may have contributed to
poor scar integrity.[7] Due to high probability of repeated rupture
of the uterus in
future pregnancies a subtotal hysterectomy was done in this patient.
References
1. Ramphal SR, Moodley J. Antepartum uterine rupture in previous caesarean
sections presenting as advanced extrauterine pregnancies: lessons learnt. Eur J
Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;143(1):3-8.
2. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker
SH, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial
of labour after prior caesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004;351(25):2581-9. .
3. Rabinowitz R, Samueloff A, Sapirstein E, Shen O. Expectant management
of fetal arm extruding through a large uterine dehiscence following sonographic
diagnosis at 27 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28(2): 235-7.
4. Ghahramani L, Moslemi S, Tahamtan M, Hashemizadeh MH. Antepartum
Uterine Rupture Occurring at the Site of a Peviously Repaired Dilatation and
Curettage-Induced Perforation: A Case Report. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2013;1(2):96-98.
5. Jansen FW, Vredevoogd CB, van Ulzen K, Hermans J, Trimbos JB, Trimbos-Kemper
TC. Complications of hysteroscopy: a prospective, multicenter study. Obstet
Gynecol. 2000;96(2):266-70.
6. Propst AM, Liberman RF, Harlow
BL, Ginsburg ES. Complications of hysteroscopic surgery: predicting
patients at risk. Obstet Gynecol Oct 2000;96(4):517-20.
7. Myo Sun Kim,1 You Kyoung Uhm,1 Ju Yeong Kim,2 Byung Chul Jee, 2,3 and
Yong Beom Kim2,3 Obstetric outcomes after uterine myomectomy: Laparoscopic
versus laparotomic approach Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2013 Nov;56(6):375-381.
Citation
Qureshi
S, Gupta AS. Recurrent Uterine rupture. JPGO Volume 1 Issue 3, March 2014, available at: http://www.jpgo.org/2014/03/recurrent-uterine-rupture.html