Lamaze.org > Online Community > Ask an Expert

Bookmark and Share

home | contact us | site map | Login
Ask Henci

Henci GoerFind out what other moms-to-be are asking.  Join in the discussion with Henci Goer, an expert in obstetric research. If you would like to contact Henci outside of the Ask Henci forum, send an email to Goersitemail@aol.com.

If you would like your own username and password for the Ask Henci forum, click here to submit your request.


Thinness of uterus
Last Post 11 May 2008 05:10 AM by Henci Goer, BA. 3 Replies.
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
Author Messages
maria (guest)
Posts:692
Avatar


--
26 Apr 2008 03:07 PM QuoteQuote ReplyReply
This is a question from a woman on a list I am on:

"My midwife suggested I get an ultrasound to determine the thickness of my uterus near the scar because women with a thickness of greater than 3.5 mm are less likely to rupture and having a thickness of 2mm or less puts a woman at greater risk.


The statistics my midwife gave me were very clear about things like ruptures vs. slight tears, and natural birth, not including inductions, etc. They were pretty thorough statistics, for the most part, but not a lot on how valid the ultrasound would be for me."

Do you have more info about this Henci? Thanks.

Henci Goer, BAUser is Online
Ask Henci
Ask Henci
Posts:460
Avatar


--
30 Apr 2008 08:47 PM QuoteQuote ReplyReply

I don't have anything recent on this issue, but here is the gist of the discussion taken from:

Lieberman E. Risk factors for uterine rupture during a trial of labor after cesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001;44(3):609-21.

This review is discussing a study (Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, PHillippe HG, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996;347:281-4.) in which thickness of the uterine scar in late pregnancy was correlated with likelihood of scar rupture. The reviewer notes that using a cut-off of 2.5 mm or less would be a reasonable threshold in that only 8% of the study population had a scar thickness this thin and 10% of them experienced a scar rupture. However, the reviewer also notes that the overall scar rupture rate in the study population was 2.3%. That tells you that the results of this study cannot be generalized to a population that received proper care because any number of VBAC studies have reported scar rupture rates of 0.5% or less.

If you follow the link for Rozenberg to the PubMed site, you will be able to use the "related articles" function to see other, more recent research on this issue. 

-- Henci  

maria (guest)
Posts:692
Avatar


--
01 May 2008 01:03 AM QuoteQuote ReplyReply
Thank you.

What about the accuracy of ultra sound in determining the thickness of the uterus?  How accurate can it be?
And don't women in general have thinner and thicker areas in the uterus?

Thanks.
maria.
Henci Goer, BAUser is Online
Ask Henci
Ask Henci
Posts:460
Avatar


--
11 May 2008 05:10 AM QuoteQuote ReplyReply

Those are all good questions to which I don't know the answers. I expect it would be more accurate than amniotic fluid volume estimates because it's a much more straightforward measurement. The studies themselves might give information.

-- Henci 



Active Forums 4.1
Read the Forum Terms & Conditions

Copyright 2010 · All Rights Reserved · 2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800 · Washington, D.C. 20036-3309
800/368-4404 · 202/367-1128 · 202/367-2128 (fax)

Connect with Us
      

Privacy Statement · Terms of Use