Augmenting Myometrial Healing after Cesarean Delivery: Use of an Adjuvant Biologic Graft Placement in an Ovine Model

John O’Brien; John M O'Brien; O'Brien JM; Daniel Whetham; Whetham D; Christopher Fecteau; Fecteau C; John Jansen; John A. Jansen; Jansen J; Michael C. Hiles; Michael Hiles; Hiles M

doi:10.1055/s-0031-1272973

Augmenting Myometrial Healing after Cesarean Delivery: Use of an Adjuvant Biologic Graft Placement in an Ovine Model

John O’Brien, John M O'Brien, O'Brien JM, Daniel Whetham, Whetham D, Christopher Fecteau, Fecteau C, John Jansen, John A. Jansen, Jansen J, Michael C. Hiles, Michael Hiles, Hiles M

American journal of perinatology · 2011 · vol. 28(07) , pp. 543–550 · doi:10.1055/s-0031-1272973 · PMID:21365531 · W2048870705

article OA: closed CC0

Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher

⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-13 ⓘ

In an ovine model, adjuvant biologic graft placement during cesarean delivery hysterotomy repair increased scar thickness and neoangiogenesis without adversely affecting inflammation or adenomyosis.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-15 · read from full text ⓘ

This paper studied whether placing a biologic graft adjacent to suture repair at cesarean (hysterotomy) sites could improve long-term myometrial healing in an ovine model, comparing suture alone versus suture plus a juxtaposed graft in eight sheep. At 90 days, the graft intervention increased mean scar thickness (3.8 ± 1.2 mm vs 3.0 ± 0.4 mm; p = 0.047) and significantly enhanced neoangiogenesis, while tensile strength and inflammatory response did not differ significantly; histology also reported no significant differences in endometrial inclusions, and the authors stated the method did not incite adenomyosis or enhance inflammation in the scar. A key limitation is the very small sample size, with no significant difference in closure time or tensile strength between groups. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

We sought to reduce long-term complications after cesarean delivery by improving myometrial healing. Eight sheep (three with twins) underwent cesarean delivery. Hysterotomy sites were repaired in equal parts by suture alone or suture with a juxtaposed graft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN). At 90 days postsurgery, scar characteristics and tensile strength testing were assessed. The mean hysterotomy closure time was on average 1 minute, 14 seconds longer for those undergoing graft placement ( P=0.36). The mean scar thickness was 3.0 ± 0.4 mm for controls versus 3.8 ± 1.2 mm for the intervention group ( P=0.047). Tensile strength testing did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups. Histological examination of the myometrial scar showed no significant differences in inflammatory reaction or endometrial inclusions; however, neoangiogenesis was significantly enhanced. Myometrial repair incorporating a graft increased scar thickness and neoangiogenesis. This methodology did not incite adenomyosis or enhance inflammation within the scar.

Full text 7,080 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 3 sections · click to expand

Abstract

We sought to reduce long-term complications after cesarean delivery by improving myometrial healing. Eight sheep (three with twins) underwent cesarean delivery. Hysterotomy sites were repaired in equal parts by suture alone or suture with a juxtaposed graft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN). At 90 days postsurgery, scar characteristics and tensile strength testing were assessed. The mean hysterotomy closure time was on average 1 minute, 14 seconds longer for those undergoing graft placement (p = 0.36). The mean scar thickness was 3.0 ± 0.4 mm for controls versus 3.8 ± 1.2 mm for the intervention group (p = 0.047). Tensile strength testing did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups. Histological examination of the myometrial scar showed no significant differences in inflammatory reaction or endometrial inclusions; however, neoangiogenesis was significantly enhanced. Myometrial repair incorporating a graft increased scar thickness and neoangiogenesis. This methodology did not incite adenomyosis or enhance inflammation within the scar.

Keywords

Cesarean delivery - graft - hysterotomy - ovine model - small intestinal submucosa

References

- 1 Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch I E. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the “niche” in the scar. J Ultrasound Med. 2001; 20 1105-1115 - 2 Armstrong V, Hansen W F, VanVoorhis B J, Syrop C H. Detection of cesarean scars by transvaginal ultrasound. 2003; 101 61-65 - 3 Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawyer E et al.. Deficient lower-segment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 31 72-77 - 4 Regnard C, Nosbusch M, Fellemans C et al.. Cesarean section scar evaluation by saline contrast sonohysterography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23 289-292 - 5 Osser O V, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L. High prevalence of defects in cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34 90-97 - 6 Wang C B, Chiu W W, Lee C Y, Sun Y L, Lin Y H, Tseng C J. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between Cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34 85-89 - 7 Rotas M A, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107 1373-1381 - 8 O'Brien J M, Barton J R, Donaldson E S. The management of placenta percreta: conservative and operative strategies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175 1632-1638 - 9 Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99 976-980 - 10 Boyle R K, Waters B A, O'Rourke P K. Blood transfusion for caesarean delivery complicated by placenta praevia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49 627-630 - 11 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe H J, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet. 1996; 347 281-284 - 12 Pollio F, Staibano S, Mascolo 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; 194 527-534 - 13 Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier R J. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201 320, e1-e6 - 14 Hodde J, Janis A, Ernst D, Zopf D, Sherman D, Johnson C. Effects of sterilization on an extracellular matrix scaffold: part I. Composition and matrix architecture. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007; 18 537-543 - 15 Hiles M, Record Ritchie R D, Altizer A M. Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair? A systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov. 2009; 16 26-37 - 16 Sung V W, Rogers R G, Schaffer J I Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group et al. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112 1131-1142 - 17 Alperin M, Feola A, Meyn L, Duerr R, Abramowitch S, Moalli P. Collagen scaffold: a treatment for simulated maternal birth injury in the rat model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202 589, e1-e8 - 18 Jernigan T W, Croce M A, Cagiannos C, Shell D H, Handorf C R, Fabian T C. Small intestinal submucosa for vascular reconstruction in the presence of gastrointestinal contamination. Ann Surg. 2004; 239 733-738 discussion 738-740 - 19 Franklin Jr M E, Treviño J M, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass J L, González J J. The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic material for laparoscopic hernia repair in infected and potentially contaminated fields: long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22 1941-1946 - 20 Hodde J. Extracellular matrix as a bioactive material for soft tissue reconstruction. ANZ J Surg. 2006; 76 1096-1100 - 21 Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Whitson B. Strength over time of a resorbable bioscaffold for body wall repair in a dog model. J Surg Res. 2001; 99 282-287 - 22 Stamilio D M, DeFranco E, Paré E et al.. Short interpregnancy interval: risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110 1075-1082 - 23 Bujold E, Gauthier R J. Risk of uterine rupture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115 1003-1006 - 24 Hamar B D, Saber S B, Cackovic M et al.. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110 808-813 - 25 Yazicioglu F, Gökdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygün M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: is it preventable?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 124 32-36 - 26 Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T et al.. Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006; 85 429-434 - 27 Dodd J M, Anderson E R, Gates S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (3) CD004732 - 28 Chang Y, Tsai E M, Long C Y, Lee C L, Kay N. Resectoscopic treatment combined with sonohysterographic evaluation of women with postmenstrual bleeding as a result of previous cesarean delivery scar defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200 370, e1-e4 - 29 Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E. Resectoscopic correction of the “isthmocele” in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15 172-175 John M O'BrienM.D. Director, Maternal Fetal Medicine University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY 40536 Email: [email protected]

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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

adenomyosis

MeSH descriptors

Cesarean Section Hysterotomy Intestinal Mucosa Myometrium Wound Healing Wound Healing Animals Cicatrix Cicatrix Female Intestinal Mucosa Models, Animal Myometrium Myometrium Pregnancy Sheep Tensile Strength Tissue Adhesions Transplantation, Autologous

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc: last seen: 2026-07-20T06:19:39.675353+00:00
openalex: last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
pubmed: last seen: 2026-05-13T22:16:48.482574+00:00

License: CC0 · commercial use OK