Abstract
It is difficult to perform studies with larger series in rare condition. This is
a report of my experience in managing Cesarean Scar Endometriosis (CSE)
and emphasize the diagnosis and treatment options. I have collected and
documented a case series of 10 patients who underwent surgical widen bloc
excision for CSE. Patients’ demographic features, symptoms, and clinical and
operative findings were collected. The mean age was 32.4 years. Cyclical pain
was documented in eight patients, while two patients presented with noncyclical
pain. Menstrually-related enlargement of the nodule was observed in six patients.
The mean operation time was 20min. The endometriotic lesions ranged from a
diameter of 2 to 7 cm in size. Patients recovered completely, and no recurrence
was observed. Four patients suffered from secondary infertility. Complete
wide excision of CSE is both diagnostic and therapeutic. The most important
issues to be considered during surgery is nonspreading endometriosis while
manipulation. During the 12 month, follow up the four patients who suffered from
infertility got pregnant.
Case Report
A Case Series of 10 Cases of Scar Endometriosis
Ahmed Hassan*
Faculty of Medicine, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
*Corresponding author: Ahmed Hassan, Faculty of
Medicine, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
Received: November 21, 2018; Accepted: December
14, 2018; Published: December 21, 2018
Introduction
Endometriosis is a common gynecological condition where the
endometrial glands and stromal structures are found outside the
uterus. It mainly affects women in reproductive ages [1]. Endometriosis
occurs most often in pelvis, on the surface lining of the pelvic cavity,
peritoneum, ovaries, posterior cul-de-sac, and uterosacral ligaments.
Rarely, implants of endometriosis can occur outside of the pelvis,
and these forms are termed as extra pelvic endometriosis. It can also
arise from scar tissues especially after cesarean section. The most
accepted cause is mechanical iatrogenic implantation. Endometrial
cells are inoculated directly into the surgical area and can progress
to endometriosis in optimal conditions. This causes various clinical
symptoms due to proliferation of these cells under the influence of
female hormones. Usually there is delay in diagnosing CSE, the most
common clinical symptoms and signs are swelling, tenderness on
local site, and cyclic pain. Widen block excision with surrounding
clear margins is both diagnostic and therapeutic intervention.
Methods
A case series of 10 patients who underwent surgical management
for CSE in our obstetrics and gynecology Department – Ain Shams
University. All patients were informed about surgical management
and written informed consents were obtained.
All patients had a history of previous cesarean section, and
their initial cesarean sections were performed in different hospitals.
After the clinical assessment, the diagnosis was suspected by pelvic
ultrasonography.
We performed sharp dissection with a scalpel within the area
of the incision from the previous cesarean section. The cystic mass,
which was surrounded by fibrosis, was removed carefully with a safe
margin. The surgical intervention was followed by the reconstruction
of the abdominal wall in anatomical layers.
All in cases, the definitive diagnosis was confirmed by the
pathological examination.
All patients were operated under spinal anesthesia. Age, parity,
body mass index, symptoms, size of tumor, time between cesarean
section and the onset of symptoms, operative findings, and surgical
outcomes were evaluated. Demographic features and operative
findings of the cases are demonstrated in Table 1.
Results
This study includes the medical records of 10 patients who
underwent surgical treatment for CSE. The first admissions of seven
patients were to gynecologists, two to general surgeons, and one to
a dermatologist. All were referred to our hospital. Based on medical
records, Pfannenstiel incision had been performed for cesarean
section in all patients.
The median age was 32.6 ± 6.1 years (range from 26 to 38 years),
and the mean BMI was 30.95 ± 6.59 kg/m
2 (range from 23.30 to
37.50 kg/m2). The common complaint of the patients was a palpable
mass under the incision scar. Eight patients suffered from cyclical
pain. Noncyclic pain was seen in two patients, and four patients had
experienced the enlargement of the nodule during the menstrual
period. The mean time interval between initial cesarean section and
the onset of symptoms was 29.2 months (range of 18 to 42).
The preoperative diagnosis was correct in all patients. Two
patients had failed medical treatment before admission to our clinic.
All of the patients were treated surgically. Almost all the nodules
were excised easily. In nine cases, extensions of the lesions through
the facial layer were seen during surgery. In these cases, facial defects
were repaired after excision
The mean operation time was 20.1 (11–30) min. The diameter of
the endometriotic lesions ranged from 2 to 7 cm in size. All patients
were completely recovered without relapse of symptoms. The follow-
up period was 12 months.
Austin J Obstet Gynecol 5(9): id1130 (2018) - Page - 02
Ahmed Hassan Austin Publishing Group
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
No recurrence was observed during the follow-up period.
Four patients suffered from 2ry infertility and they got pregnant
spontaneously during the first year after the operation.
Discussion
Endometriosis in cesarean scar is a rarely observed finding.
There are a limited number of publications discussing CSE, and most
of them are case reports. It is difficult to conduct well-controlled
clinical trials in rarely observed disease. The common symptom
of CSE includes palpable mass, typically accompanied by cyclic,
noncyclic, or constant pain. Menstruation usually aggravates disease.
The history and complain of the patient helps in diagnosis of the
illness. De Oliveira et al. reported a case–control study to identify
the risk factors of scar endometriosis. According to this study, early
hysterotomy in pregnancy especially before 22
nd week of gestation
is the main risk factor [2]. Additionally, increased menstrual flow
and alcohol consumption are also concluded as risk factors, while
high parity may be a protecting factor [2]. The most common risk
factor for the presence of endometriosis in scar tissue is a previous
history of obstetric surgical procedures [3]. The reason was defined by
Wang et al. first of all, obstetric surgery can expose a large amount of
endometrial cells, and these cells can be entrapped in the wound [4].
The separation of active cells may be facilitated by amniotic fluid and
significantly, more blood loss in obstetric surgery would provide a
relatively rich nutritional environment for the growth of endometrial
tissue in the wound [4]. In this study, more than half of our patients
were overweight. This can provide wide surgical surface for the
entrapment of endometrial active cells and may be an impact on the
illness. In this study, the time interval between cesarean section and
the onset of symptoms is ranged from 18 months to 42 months. The
relative late onset of symptoms after surgery is the probable cause of
misdiagnosis [1]. The mean duration of the symptoms was higher in
patients whom first admission was not to the obstetrician. Overall,
general surgeons are infrequently involved in the management of
cesarean section scar lesions [5].
History and physical examination is essential for an accurate
diagnosis. Scar endometriosis is usually developed in superficial layers
of the connective tissue, and nodules are usually found by palpation.
The clinical evaluation can be confirmed by pelvic ultrasonography.
Ultrasound is the most accessible, reliable, and cost-effective
procedure. Some additional diagnostic procedures such as fine-needle
aspiration, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging
can be performed [5,6]. The imaging modalities are nonspecific and
more useful for differential diagnoses and detecting the relationship
between the mass and the other tissues. These are also used in
planning of operative resection, to identify and to evaluate the extent
of disease. Awareness of its typical clinical manifestations remains the
mainstay for intervention and diagnosis.
In this study, all cesarean sections were performed outside of our
hospital. Hence, we could not contribute to the literature about the
incidence of CSE. It can be assumed as a methodological limitation
of our study. Based on literature reviewed, the estimated incidence
of scar endometrioma ranges from 0.02 to 3.4 % and more frequently
observed with an incidence of 0.03 to 0.47 % following cesarean
delivery [3,7].
Nominato et al. suggested that cesarean section is the commonest
cause of developing scar endometriosis [8]. It should be suspected in
any patient, with scar-related masses, who had a history of uterine
surgery, especially cesarean section.
However, endometriosis on the abdominal wall can be observed
in some sporadic cases that have not been previously exposed to any
type of surgery [9]. Furthermore, some presentations of abdominal
wall endometriomas are referred to surgery performed by general
surgeons such as appendectomy [10]. In these cases, hematogenous
outspread, lymphatic dissemination, coelomic metaplasia, and some
else theories could be addressed for probable pathogenesis. In our
study, all cases had a history of at least one cesarean section. By the
fact that the number of cesarean sections is constantly increasing, this
complication becomes more frequent [11-13].
In this case, series, we did not find any evidence of pelvic
endometriosis. Iatrogenic mechanical transplantations on incision
scars during the operations are the most accepted pathogenesis. So
it is important to take some precautions to avoid transplantation
of endometrial cells. To minimize endometriosis contamination,
some authors recommend careful isolation of the wall incision and
lavage with saline before the closure of the wall [14]. The others
hypothesized that failure to close the parietal and visceral peritoneum
with sutures at the time of ces arean section may markedly increase
case age parity BMI Previous abdominal surgery Asymptomatic period in months 2ry infertility Operative time in min.
1 32 1 25 CS 24 no 25
2 28 2 30 CS (2) 18 no 15
3 30 1 33 CS 40 yes 20
4 36 1 29 CS 42 yes 11
5 26 1 31 CS 18 no 25
6 34 3 34 CS (3) 24 no 30
7 31 2 37 CS (2) 24 no 15
8 32 1 23 CS, appendictomy 30 yes 20
9 38 2 35 CS (2) 48 no 15
10 33 1 24 CS 24 yes 25
Table 1:
Asymptomatic period was defined as the time interval between the previous surgery and the onset of the symptoms. Number in the parentheses indicates the number
of procedures.
Austin J Obstet Gynecol 5(9): id1130 (2018) - Page - 03
Ahmed Hassan Austin Publishing Group
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
the postoperative occurrence of an endometrioma in the skin incision
scar [15].
Replacing instruments and needles with a new one is
recommended when suturing other abdominal layers [16]. Based
on literature reviewed, we did not find any correlation between the
indications of cesarean section and development of CSE. On the other
hand, some authors reported the correlations with timing of cesarean
section and CSE.
Wicherek et al. stated that cesarean section performed before
spontaneous onset of labor may increase substantially the risk of
occurrence of scar endometriomas [17]. Immune tolerance during
pregnancy was suggested to be an important factor predisposing to
the implantation [17]. Similarly in this study, 7 of 10 patients had
cesarean section without the presence of regular uterine contractions.
In other words, seven cases were elective. Medical treatment gives
only partial relief of pain and with regard to the almost certain
recurrence of the condition after cessation of medication [5,18]. The
use of progestogens, oral contraceptive pills, and danazol are not
effective [5].
Due to side effects of androgens, patients have poor compliance
to these drugs [5]. Two of our patients had a history of medical
treatment failure before admission to the hospital. Treatment of
choice is wide excision. Surgical treatment is overly recommended
[1,19,20].
The mean operation time was 20min. None of them have required
further surgical intervention in the follow-up. So in order to prevent
the recurrences, surgical excision remains the preferable method.
Local recurrence is likely to be after an inadequate surgical excision
[1,20].
Four patients in this study achieved spontaneous pregnancy
within the first year after the excision of the CSE, which suggest
that scar endometriosis may have biochemical effect that affects
the process of ovulation and implantation, further studies needed
to confirm this finding as no data in the literature to support this
observational finding.
References
1. Gupta P, Gupta S. Scar Endometriosis: a Case Report with Literature Review.
Acta Med Iran. 2015; 53: 793-795.
2. Vellido-Cotelo R, Muñoz-González JL, Oliver-Pérez MR, de la Hera-Lázaro
C, Almansa-González C, Pérez-Sagaseta C, et al. Endometriosis node in
gynaecologic scars: a study of 17 patients and the diagnostic considerations
in clinical experience in tertiary care center. BMC Womens Health. 2015; 15:
13-15.
3. Vural B, Vural F, Müezzinoglu B. An Abdominal Wall Desmoid Tumour
Mimicking Cesarean Scar Endometriomas: A Case Report and Review of the
Literature. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9: 14-15.
4. Uçar MG, Şanlıkan F, Göçmen A. Surgical Treatment of Scar Endometriosis
Following Cesarean Section, a Series of 12 Cases. Indian J Surg. 2015; 77:
682-686.
5. Padmanabhan LD, Mhaskar R, Mhaskar A. Scar endometriosis. J Obstet
Gynaecol India. 2003; 53: 59-60.
6. Bhowmick RN, Paul P, Dutta S. Endometriosis of laparotomy scar. J Obstet
Gynaecol India. 1986; 36: 130-131.
7. Chatterjee SK. Scar endometriosis: A Clinicopathological study of 17 cases.
Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 56: 81-84.
8. Nirula R, Greaney GC. Incisional endometriosis: An under appreciated
diagnosis in general surgery. Am Coll Surg. 2000; 190: 404-407.
9. Ideyi SC, Schein M, Niazi M. Spontaneous endometriosis of the abdominal
wall. Dig Surg. 2003; 20: 246-248.
10. Tomas E, Martin A, Garfia C, Gomez FS, Morillas JD, Tortajada GC.
Abdominal wall endometriosis in absence of previoussurgery. J Ultrasound
Med. 1999; 18: 373-375.
11. Demiral G, Aksoy F, Ozclik A, Saban B, Kusak M, Ekinci O, Erengul C.
Cesarean scar endometriosis: presentation of eleven clinical cases and
review of the literature. J Turk Soc Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 8: 209- 213.
12. Elabsi M, Lahlou MK, Rouas L, Essadel H, Benamer S, Mohammadi A, et
al. Cicatrix endometriosis of the abdominal wall. Ann Chir. 2002; 127: 65-67.
13. Phupong V, Triratanachat S. Ceserean section scar endometriosis: a case
report and review of the literature. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002; 85: 733-734.
14. Zhang J, Liu X. Clinicopathological features of endometriosis in abdominal
wall-clinical analysis of 151 cases. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 43: 379-
383.
15. Akdemir A, Akman L, Yavuzsen HT, Zekioglu O. Clinical features of patients
with endometriosis on the cesarean scar. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014; 30:
541-543.
16. Blanco RG, Parithivel VS, Shah AK, Gumbs MA, Schein M, Gerst PH.
Abdominal wall endometriomas. Am J Surg. 2003; 185: 596-597.
17. Ozler A, Yaldız S, Değirmencioglu AI. Karın duvarı endometriozisi: Olgu
sunumu. Dicle Tip Derg. 2010; 37: 410.
18. Andolf E, Thorsell M, Kallen K. Caesarean section and risk for endometriosis:
a prospective cohort study of Swedish registries. BJOG. 2013; 120: 1061-
1065.
19. Medeiros F, Cavalcante DI, Medeiros MA, Eleutério J. Fine-needle aspiration
cytology of scarendometriosis: study of seven cases and literature review.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2011; 39: 18-21.
20. Veda P, Srinivasaiah M. Incisional endometriosis: diagnosed by fine needle
aspiration cytology. J Lab Phys. 2010: 2; 117-120.
Citation: Hassan A. A Case Series of 10 Cases of Scar Endometriosis. Austin J Obstet Gynecol . 2018; 5(9):
1130.
Austin J Obstet Gynecol - Volume 5 Issue 9 - 2018
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Hassan. © All rights are reserved
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.