Current surgical treatment of uterine isthmocele: an update of existing literature.

The prevalence of uterine isthmocele, also known as a uterine niche, has risen in parallel with increasing cesarean section (CS) rates, affecting approximately 60% of women depending on their history of cesarean deliveries. This condition, now categorized as cesarean scar disorder (CSD) by the “Delphi consensus,” is characterized by one primary or two secondary symptoms. Diagnosis can be made through transvaginal ultrasound, sonohysterography, hysteroscopy, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Management of isthmocele may involve pharmacological or surgical interventions. This review aims to provide a thorough analysis of the surgical management options, focusing on postoperative symptom relief, intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and impact on secondary infertility. PubMed was comprehensively searched for observational studies from inception to 07.08.2024. Surgical treatments include hysteroscopic resection, laparoscopic procedures, and vaginal approaches, all of which offer comparable symptom relief. However, the vaginal approach is associated with a longer hospital stay. The robotic-assisted approach shows promising results but lacks extensive data. Among surgical options, hysteroscopic treatment has the fewest complications but is generally avoided when residual myometrial thickness (RMT) is less than 3 mm. While many CSDs remain asymptomatic, and some women with uterine isthmocele may not wish to conceive, symptomatic patients or those desiring to conceive may benefit from surgical intervention. The choice of procedure should be based on individual patient characteristics, particularly RMT, to define the most appropriate surgical approach. Similar content being viewed by others

A uterine niche, also known as isthmocele, cesarean scar defect, or uterine diverticulum can be observed after an incomplete healing of the cesarean scar. In 1969, Poivedin et al. first described a “uterine depression” at the site of a cesarean section (CS) [1]. In the years that followed, various terms were employed to describe this defect and various symptoms related to this disorder have been proposed. It is only recently that a “Delphi” consensus has been reached regarding the constellation of symptoms associated with a uterine niche, leading to the condition being formally named Cesarean Scar Disorder (CSD) [2]. CSD is defined as a uterine niche, combined with at least one primary or two secondary symptoms. The primary symptoms include postmenstrual spotting, pain during uterine bleeding, technical issues with catheter insertion during embryo transfer and the secondary refer to unexplained infertility combined with intrauterine fluid [2]. The most prevalent method for diagnosing uterine defects is the conventional two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), which may be performed with or without injection of contrast agents [3, 4]. Additionally, other research groups advocate for the utilization of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (3D TVUS), sonohysterography, hysteroscopy, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as alternative diagnostic approaches for identifying unhealed uterine defects [2, 5, 6]. Currently, there are no specific guidelines for the diagnosis of a uterine niche. However, Jordan et al., in their Delphi consensus, proposed that the use of gel or saline might enhance the diagnostic accuracy for this defect. According to their research, sonographic characterization of the lesion involves identifying an anechoic defect within the myometrium with a minimum depth of 2 mm [7]. Nonetheless, prior studies have employed lower cut-off values for defining this defect [8]. The prevalence of uterine isthmocele has risen notably with the increasing frequency of cesarean sections worldwide. Current estimates suggest that this condition affects between 19 and 88% of women, depending on the number of prior CS [8, 9]. Indeed after a CS, a niche can be observed in about 60% of women and 25% of them may present a large defect with a residual myometrium thickness (RMT) less than 3 mm. Between 30 and 40% of women with a uterine niche following a CS will exhibit symptoms, with postmenstrual spotting being the most prevalent [2, 8]. The management of CSDs can be addressed through either pharmacological or surgical methods [10]. Data on medical management remains limited. One study provides evidence supporting the use of oral contraceptives [11], while a randomized trial advocates for the use of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system [12]. Thus, this paper aims to illuminate the surgical management of a uterine niche. Currently, several different methods of CSDs surgical repair are available, including hysteroscopy, vaginal repair, standard or robotic-assisted laparoscopy, and a combinational approach. Recent literature offers no specific guidelines recommending one approach over another for the management of CSDs [13, 14]. Therefore, this review aims to offer a thorough update on the surgical management of cesarean scar defects (CSDs), including an evaluation of the indications for each treatment method, surgical outcomes related to symptom relief, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and the incidence of subsequent pregnancies following repair.

PubMed (Medline) was searched to identify observational studies published from inception to 07.08.2024 that were related to uterine niche repair. The search was limited to English papers and human studies. The following search terms were used: ‘cesarean scar defect, OR ‘uterine niche, ‘cesarean scar dehiscence, OR ‘cesarean scar isthmocele, OR cesarean scar diverticulum’, OR ‘cesarean scar pouch’. We further hand-searched the citations of the retrieved eligible papers to identify additional publications that might have been missed during the initial search. Case reports, case-series including less than 3 participants, editorials, reviews and conference papers were excluded. The primary outcome of this review was symptoms relief, defined as improvement in postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding (PAUB) or improvement in pelvic pain and secondary outcomes included postmenstrual blood loss, length of hospital stay, secondary infertility improvement, and cesarean scar recurrence. From each study, the following information was abstracted: first author, publication year, study location, study type, sample size, age (mean ± SD), BMI, previous number of CSs, surgical outcomes in terms of patient relief of symptoms, intraoperative complication, postoperative complications, hospital length of stay (mean ± SD).

Hysteroscopic resection Technically, for bleeding control purposes, most studies reported resection of the inferior and posterior edge of the CSD, while the bottom part was fulgurated or electrocauterized with a roller-ball electrode [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Other research groups chose to resect only the inferior edge of the CSD, yet they achieved comparable intraoperative and postoperative outcomes [25,26,27,28]. The primary outcomes investigated in most studies were PAUB and secondary infertility improvement. The first hysteroscopic resection for the repair of a uterine niche was reported by Fernandez et al. In their study, hysteroscopic resection of the abnormal uterine fibroid tissue successfully resolved postmenstrual bleeding in all patients. Notably, among the entire cohort, two of four patients who were infertile prior to the procedure subsequently achieved pregnancy, representing a 50% success rate in this subgroup [29]. In 2011, Wang et al. retrospectively studied 57 patients who were offered resectoscopic management of abnormal uterine bleeding following CS. While the mean duration of preoperative menstrual bleeding was significantly longer than that of postoperative bleeding (12.9 ± 2.9 days vs. 9.4 ± 4.1 days, respectively; p < 0.001), only 59.6% of patients reported an improvement in symptoms after surgery. Notably, this improvement was more commonly observed in patients with an anteflexed uterus [30]. Similarly, a randomized trial by Vervoort et al. reported significant decrease in menstrual blood loss and improved quality of life after hysteroscopic resection, albeit intermenstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea persisted even after surgery [24]. In 2014, a large prospective cohort study involving 120 patients found that 80% experienced complete relief from symptoms, including uterine bleeding and chronic suprapubic pelvic pain, while 7% saw improvement and 13% reported no change. The researchers concluded that the operative hysteroscopy strategy, defined as isthmoplasty, could be considered for symptomatic patients, although long-term outcomes, such as the risk of uterine rupture in future pregnancies, remain inadequately studied [26]. In a recent large, randomized trial comparing the 26Fr resectoscope with the 16Fr miniresectoscope for isthmocele repair, the results demonstrated a low incidence of PAUB of only 2.9%, similar in both groups. Additionally, pelvic pain was effectively managed in 92.6% of patients. Overall, the study found a low rate of postoperative complications, with only 1.9% of patients experiencing issues such as cervical laceration, nausea, or the need for hospitalization exceeding 4 h [31]. Overall, PAUB was effectively managed in 59,6% to 100% of patients (Table 1). Accordingly, secondary infertility due to the niche was resolved in 50% to 100% of the population studied [15,16,17, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 30, 32] (Table 1). Furthermore, no intraoperative severe complications such as uterine perforation or bladder injury from the resectoscopic resection were reported by neither of all authors (Table 1). Most authors acknowledge that low residual myometrial thickness (RMT) can limit the feasibility of hysteroscopic resection. Although the precise cut-off value remains debated, most studies include patients with an RMT of at least 2 mm to minimize the risks of uterine perforation and bladder injury. Laparoscopic repair Compared to hysteroscopic resection, laparoscopic repair enables complete excision of the cesarian-induced diverticulum and fibroid tissue, followed by one-layer or double-layer suturing of the remaining myometrium. Therefore, the laparoscopic approach not only alleviates symptoms associated with the niche, but also increases the RMT. Indeed, a recent prospective cohort study indicated that median RMT increased from 1.0 mm to 6.2 mm in patients undergoing laparoscopic repair of the ceasarian scar defect [33]. Other research groups reported even higher post-laparoscopic RMT measurements of around 10.0 mm [5, 21]. Therefore, most authors consider laparoscopic repair of the uterine niche in symptomatic patients with RMT ≤ 2.5–3 mm. Regarding the procedure, after pneumoperitoneum induction, adhesiolysis between the bladder and the CSD could be performed, if adhesions are present. To avoid bladder injury, the visceral peritoneum above the anterior uterine wall is opened with a direction laterally to centrally, so bladder injury could be avoided. Then, the complete CSD could be revealed and following bladder dissection, complete resection of the CSD could be performed. As mentioned above, after complete uterine niche resection, suturing of the remaining myometrium could be performed by single layer or double layer sutures. Most researchers opt for double layer suturing of the myometrium[5, 25, 34,35,36,37,38], while others believe that one layer is enough. This remains a subject of ongoing debate, as no study to date has directly compared the efficacy of the two methods. Additionally, in case of a retroflexed uterus, many practitioners recommend the bilateral shortening of the round ligaments at the end of the procedure to minimize wound stretching forces and, therefore, enhance better healing [34, 37]. Overall, after laparoscopic repair, significantly improved symptoms associated with the CSD were reported in 46% to 100% of patients [17, 21, 25, 34, 35, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43] (Table 2). Interestingly, in the research group where 46% of patients experienced significant symptom improvement after surgery, overall symptom improvement was observed in 77.4% of cases [25]. This study compared combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic repair with hysteroscopic repair alone in terms of postmenstrual bleeding relief and pregnancy rates. The combined laparoscopic approach demonstrated slightly better symptom relief, with median postmenstrual bleeding durations of 8 days compared to 9 days for the hysteroscopic approach (p < 0.05 for both). However, no statistically significant differences in pregnancy rates were observed between the two methods. [25]. Regarding secondary infertility improvement, Karampelas et al. [42]reported an 83.3% improvement rate. In contrast, Tanimura et al. [21] and Donnez et al. [34]reported improvement rates of 55.6% and 44%, respectively. Additionally, another study—whose details regarding the inclusion of infertile women are unclear—reported that 31% of women became pregnant within a maximum follow-up period of four years after surgery [36]. CSD recurrence was infrequent across the studies reviewed. Specifically, Nirgianakis et al. [40] reported a recurrence rate of 4.7%, while Zhang et al. [39] and Vervoort et al. [37] reported rates of 16% and 11.9%, respectively. Finally, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were generally low across the studies reviewed. Notably, only Vervoort et al. reported intraoperative complications, including 2 cases of muscular bladder laceration, 2 instances of vessel injury, and 1 case of uterine perforation [37]. Robotic-assisted repair Overall, four studies were identified reporting on robotic-assisted repair of CSD with [44, 45] or without [46, 47] simultaneous cesarean scar (CS) pregnancy management. Baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes are reported in Table 3. In 2009, Persson et al. described in a case-report the first robot-assisted Cesarean Scar (CS) ectopic pregnancy management and the same technique was followed by later researchers to repair the uterine diverticulum [44]. The researchers used a four-arm Da Vinci approach and two 12-mm assistant trocars. Following pelvic dissection, metal clips were applied to distal internal iliac arteries and the propria ligaments. Then, the myometrium around the defect was excised using single 2–0 Vicryl sutures [48]. Hoffmann et al. employed three Da Vinci trocars along with a 12 mm assistant trocar. Enhanced visualization of vascularized tissue was achieved through the periodic intravenous use of indocyanine green injection and the robotic firefly feature [45]. Similarly, three arm da Vinci plus one 10 mm assistant trocar was applied by Cardaillac et al. [47]. Hofgaard et al. reported the Da Vinci surgical CS pregnancy management simultaneous with CSD repair of 14 patients. The researchers reported no perioperative complications. However, postoperatively, they noted three Clavien-Dindo II complications and one Clavien-Dindo IIIa complication, specifically recurrent minor vaginal bleeding attributed to isthmic synechiae [44]. Wang et al. performed three robot-assisted isthmocele repairs with no postoperative complications reported, albeit one bladder perforation was noted intraoperatively during adhesiolysis [46]. In a case series involving five patients, Hoffmann et al. reported successful cesarean scar pregnancy removal combined with uterine defect repair. There were no perioperative or postoperative complications, and no recurrence of the defect was observed [45]. In a two-center retrospective study conducted by Cardaillac et al. in 2022, 33 isthmoceles were surgically repaired using the Da Vinci robotic platform. During the study, one case required conversion to laparotomy due to a vessel injury. Additionally, two patients developed pelvic pain postoperatively and needed to visit the emergency department. Of these, one required a subsequent reoperation through laparotomy [47]. Among the studies, Hofgaard et al. [44] reported a 64% pregnancy rate following the procedure, while Cardaillac et al. [47] and Hoffmann et al. [45] reported subsequent pregnancy rates of 75% and 40%, respectively. However, the study of Hoffmann et al. did not clarify whether the follow-up period was sufficient for additional pregnancies to occur or whether all participants desired a subsequent pregnancy [45]. Furthermore, as indicated in Table 3, length of hospital stay is relatively low with the robotic approach. Vaginal repair The vaginal approach offers another well-established approach for repairing a CSD. The vesicovaginal space through the cervicovaginal junction must be opened and the bladder must be stripped to expose the anterior uterine wall. The defect may be closed using either one layer [49] or double layer sutures [38, 39, 50,51,52,53], albeit the superiority of one method to another is still a subject of debate. The characteristics and surgical outcomes of each study included in this surgical subgroup are presented in Table 4. Overall, symptom relief—such as alleviation of abnormal uterine bleeding or postmenstrual spotting—was achieved in 57–92.9% of patients, according to the studies reviewed [38, 39, 49,50,51,52,53] (Table 4). Collectively, no postoperative complications were reported across the studies. Intraoperatively, Luo et al. [50] reported a single case of infection, Chen et al. [52] noted three hematomas and two bladder injuries, while Deng et al. [51] documented three bladder injuries and one hematoma. These findings suggest that the overall rate of intraoperative complications in the vaginal repair group is relatively low, especially considering the large number of patients included in each study. Regarding CSD recurrence, studies reported percentages ranging from 7.1 to 42.6%, suggesting a relatively high recurrence rate (Table 4). Furthermore, the length of hospital stay is generally longer for vaginal repair (Table 4) compared to other minimally invasive procedures, such as laparoscopic or robotic repair of the defect. Regarding obstetric outcomes, Deng et al. reported a 67% pregnancy rate in a cohort of 124 patients who underwent repair using the vaginal approach [51].

The current narrative review indicates that hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of cesarean scar defects (CSDs) present similar surgical outcomes in terms of symptom relief, with rates ranging from 56,9% to 100%, and 40% to 100%, respectively. Vaginal repair also shows similar results, with a broad range of overall symptom relief, rates varying from 57% to 92.9%. However, it is associated with a longer postoperative hospital stay compared to the other methods (Table 4). Data on robot-assisted repair of an isthmocele is promising, though studies involving larger patient populations are still limited. Hysteroscopic treatment, as expected, was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications. A 2020 meta-analysis reported conclusions consistent with our findings. The study highlighted that hysteroscopic resection achieved an 85% (75.05–92.76%) rate of symptom relief, while the laparoscopic/robotic approach provided a 92.77% rate of symptom relief, and the vaginal approach resulted in 82.52% symptom relief. Additionally, hysteroscopic surgery was associated with the lowest odds of complications, at 0.76% (0.20–1.66%) [54]. However, the data should be interpreted with caution due to variations in diagnostic criteria for evaluating the defect, the scarcity of randomized trials, and differences in how outcome measures were reported. Due to the considerable variability in diagnostic criteria and outcome reporting across studies, our team has chosen to provide a narrative update on the overall management of isthmoceles. In a head-to-head comparison between the transvaginal and laparoscopic approaches, Zhang et al. reported that both methods achieved comparable surgical outcomes regarding prolonged menstrual bleeding. Specifically, symptom improvement was noted in 89% of patients who underwent the vaginal approach, compared to 85% of those who received the laparoscopic approach. The authors concluded that the vaginal approach may be more cost effective and convenient for a symptomatic patient [39]. Regarding reproductive outcomes, the da Vinci approach showed rates ranging from 40 to 75%, the hysteroscopic resection indicated pregnancy rates in 50% to 100% of patients and the laparoscopic treatment achieved rates from 44 to 83.3%. In the vaginal group, one study reported pregnancy rates of 67%[51]. A recent systematic review aimed at evaluating fertility outcomes in patients with isthmocele treated surgically reported an overall pregnancy rate of 65.4% across the 13 studies included. However, due to insufficient data, the review could not provide pregnancy rates for each treatment group for more precise comparison. The researchers did note that pregnancy rates were 21 of 28 (75%) for patients treated with hysteroscopy, compared to 9 of 28 (32%) for those who were untreated [55]. These findings are based on a robust randomized trial conducted by Abdou et al., which included 56 patients and demonstrated that hysteroscopic remodeling is both effective and low-risk in addressing CSD-induced secondary infertility, provided that the RMT is at least 2.5 mm [56]. Nonetheless, different systematic review and meta-analyses regarding the surgical management of CSDs for secondary infertility prevention reported lack of evidence to support surgical correction of an isthocele to improve fertility outcomes [54, 57]. Surgical intervention may be considered based on specific indications. Clinicians should exercise caution when determining whether CSD is the sole cause of infertility, as careful assessment is required to ensure accurate diagnosis and treatment planning. As previously mentioned, hysteroscopy is generally avoided by most authors when the RMT is less than 3 mm [10], as it is often considered more suitable for resection rather than complete repair in such cases. This limitation in patient selection could constitute bias, which is related with the improved reported outcomes for this method. Despite the encouraging success rates for secondary infertility treatment, ranging from 50 to 100%, women with an RMT of less than 3 mm who wish to conceive should typically be excluded from the hysteroscopic approach [58]. The decision to pursue surgery should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of various factors and should be thoroughly discussed with the patient. Key parameters to consider before deciding on the feasibility and type of surgical management include the severity of symptoms, the presence of infertility, the desire for future pregnancies, as well as the size of CSD and RMT. Isthmoceles are associated with postmenstrual spotting, which negatively affects sexuality [59] and increases the use of oral contraceptives [60]. These both can result in decreasing rates of natural conception [3]. Furthermore, women with CSD have an increased risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies [61], increased risk of CS pregnancy and severe bleeding [62], increased risk of placenta-related complications [63, 64] and uterine rupture in the third trimester [65]. The latter increases as RMT decreases post-surgery, with the hysteroscopic approach appearing less effective than laparoscopic or vaginal approaches in achieving optimal postoperative RMT results. Indeed, Rozenberg et al. reported no cases of uterine rupture or dehiscence when the postoperative RMT was above 4.5 mm in patients with a history of cesarean section [66]. Considering all the factors discussed, a patient with an asymptomatic CSD who does not wish to conceive may be managed with regular follow-up rather than undergoing surgery. Pharmacological treatment may be the initial option for symptomatic patients, although medical treatment options have been relatively underexplored. Tahara et al. reported on the effectiveness of oral contraceptives in a series of 11 patients with PAUB. After 3 to 6 cycles, symptoms resolved in all patients [11]. Furthermore, at the 6 month follow-up, 78.4% (80/102) of the women in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) group showed a 50% decrease in spotting, according to a recent RCT. Significant reductions in spotting were observed in the LNG-IUS group as compared to the hysteroscopic remodeling group, with reductions of 90.2% versus 70.2% (RR: 1.29; 95% CI 1.12–1.48) at 12 months and 89.2% versus 72.1% (RR: 1.24; 95% CI 1.08–1.42) at 9 months [12]. These results imply that pharmacological treatment may be a reasonable first choice for symptomatic patients; nevertheless, more study is urgently required to corroborate these findings. Depending on the severity of symptoms, surgical therapy may be considered for symptomatic patients. The choice of surgical approach should be determined by various patient characteristics, with RMT being a key factor. Women with less than 3 mm could not be offered a hysteroscopy as analyzed above. The decision between transvaginal, conventional laparoscopy, or robotic approaches can then be guided by the surgeon's experience and the patient’s preferences. Lastly, patients with CSD who wish to conceive may be considered for surgical repair of the defect due to the potential for severe complications. However, it is essential to thoroughly investigate and address other potential causes of infertility prior to proceeding with surgery. Our study has several limitations. First, we opted for a narrative review of the existing literature to analyze surgical methods for isthmocele repair, which may introduce some subjectivity due to the influence of the authors' opinions. This approach was chosen because of the considerable variability in diagnostic criteria, treatment indications, and outcome measures reported in the original studies. Second, we did not conduct a risk of bias assessment for the included studies, as this is typically the focus of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The strength of our study lies in its comprehensive search and analysis of the literature, further enhanced by a critical evaluation of the available evidence.

The rate of CS is increasing worldwide, leading to a corresponding rise in the occurrence of CSD. Many CSDs remain asymptomatic over the years and many women with uterine isthocele do not wish to conceive. In contrast, symptomatic women or those wishing to conceive may be offered surgical treatment for this complex condition. The choice of procedure should be guided by various patient characteristics, particularly the RMT, which may determine whether hysteroscopic management is suitable or if alternative surgical methods are more appropriate. To advance our understanding of the various surgical methods for isthmoceles, robust, multi-arm randomized trials or well-structured large observational studies are essential. These studies should compare the efficacy of different approaches, considering not only symptom relief but also patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and overall long-term benefits. Such research would pave the way for the development of more reliable clinical guidelines. Data availability Not applicable.

Poidevin LO (1959) Caesarean section scar safety, (in eng). Br Med J 2(5159):1058–1061. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5159.1058 Klein Meuleman SJM et al (2023) Definition and criteria for diagnosing cesarean scar disorder. JAMA Netw Open 6(3):e235321–e235321 Dominguez JA et al (2023) Diagnosis and management of isthmocele (Cesarean scar defect): a SWOT analysis, (in eng). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 62(3):336–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26171 Chen H-Y, Chen S-J, Hsieh F-J (1990) Observation of cesarean section scar by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 16(5):443–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-5629(90)90166-A Donnez O, Jadoul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2008) Laparoscopic repair of wide and deep uterine scar dehiscence after cesarean section. Fertil Steril 89(4):974–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.024 Shahul Hameed MS, Chern BSM, Kok TL, Wright AM (2024) Previous caesarean scar defect, an unusually described cause for post-partum haemorrhage (PPH): is it time for a dedicated scar team to manage postpartum complication after previous caesarean section? Arch Gynecol Obstet 309(6):2945–2950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07501-6 Jordans IPM et al (2019) Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure, (in eng). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53(1):107–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19049 Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, van der Voet LF, van der Slikke JW, Veersema S, Huirne JA (2011) Ultrasound evaluation of the Cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting, (in eng). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(1):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8864 Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L (2009) High prevalence of defects in Cesarean section scars at transvaginal ultrasound examination, (in eng). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34(1):90–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6395 Donnez O (2023) Cesarean scar disorder: management and repair. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 90:102398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102398 Tahara M, Shimizu T, Shimoura H (2006) Preliminary report of treatment with oral contraceptive pills for intermenstrual vaginal bleeding secondary to a cesarean section scar. Fertil Steril 86(2):477–479 Zhang J et al (2023) Comparing levonorgestrel intrauterine system with hysteroscopic niche resection in women with postmenstrual spotting related to a niche in the uterine cesarean scar: a randomized, open-label, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 228(6):712.e1 Mashiach R, Burke YZ (2021) Optimal Isthmocele Management: Hysteroscopic, Laparoscopic, or Combination, (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(3):565–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.026 Setubal A et al (2018) Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouchlike defect at the site of a cesarean section scar (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(1):38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.09.022 Muzii L et al (2017) Clinical outcomes after resectoscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective case-control study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacological Sci 21(15):3341–3346 Tsuji S et al (2018) Impact of hysteroscopic surgery for isthmocele associated with cesarean scar syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 44(1):43–48 Li C, Guo Y, Liu Y, Cheng J, Zhang W (2014) Hysteroscopic and laparoscopic management of uterine defects on previous cesarean delivery scars. J Perinat Med 42(3):363–370 Wang C-J, Huang H-J, Chao A, Lin Y-P, Pan Y-J, Horng S-G (2011) Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar defect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 154(2):218–222 Gubbini G et al (2011) Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(2):234–237 Fernandez E, Fernandez C, Fabres C, Alam V (1996) Hysteroscopic correction of cesarean section scars in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparoscopists 3(4):S13–S13 Tanimura S et al (2015) New diagnostic criteria and operative strategy for cesarean scar syndrome: endoscopic repair for secondary infertility caused by cesarean scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 41(9):1363–1369 Fabres C et al (2003) The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med 22(7):695–700 Gubbini G, Casadio P, Marra E (2008) Resectoscopic correction of the “isthmocele” in women with postmenstrual abnormal uterine bleeding and secondary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(2):172–175 Vervoort A et al (2018) Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial, (in eng). BJOG 125(3):326–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14733 Lv B, Xie X, Liu C, Lin Y (2018) Laparoscopic combined with hysteroscopic repair or operative hysteroscopy in the treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced diverticulum. Médecine/Sciences 34:47–51 Raimondo G, Grifone G, Raimondo D, Seracchioli R, Scambia G, Masciullo V (2015) Hysteroscopic treatment of symptomatic cesarean-induced isthmocele: a prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(2):297–301 Feng Y-L, Li M-X, Liang X-Q, Li X-M (2012) Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(4):498–502 Chang Y, Tsai EM, Long CY, Lee CL, Kay N (2009) Resectoscopic treatment combined with sonohysterographic evaluation of women with postmenstrual bleeding as a result of previous cesarean delivery scar defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(4):370.e1 Fernandez E, Fernandez C, Fabres C, Alam VV (1996) “Hysteroscopic correction of cesarean section scars in women with abnormal uterine bleeding,” (in eng). J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 3(4):S13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-3804(96)80170-8 Wang CJ, Huang HJ, Chao A, Lin YP, Pan YJ, Horng SG (2011) Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar defect, (in eng). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 154(2):218–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.10.016 Casadio P et al (2021) Comparison of hysteroscopic cesarean scar defect repair with 26 Fr resectoscope and 16 Fr mini-resectoscope: a prospective pilot study, (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(2):314–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.06.002 Shapira M et al (2020) Clinical success rate of extensive hysteroscopic cesarean scar defect excision and correlation to histologic findings, (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(1):129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.03.001 Jordans IP et al (2022) Change of the residual myometrial thickness during pregnancy in women who underwent laparoscopic niche resection compared with controls without niche surgery: a prospective comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 227(6):901.e1 Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM (2017) Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women, (in eng). Fertil Steril 107(1):289-296.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033 Liu SJ, Lv W, Li W (2016) Laparoscopic repair with hysteroscopy of cesarean scar diverticulum, (in eng). J Obstet Gynaecol Res 42(12):1719–1723. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13146 Marotta M-L, Donnez J, Squifflet J, Jadoul P, Darii N, Donnez O (2013) Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine scar defects diagnosed in nonpregnant women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20(3):386–391 Vervoort A, Vissers J, Hehenkamp W, Brölmann H, Huirne J (2018) “The effect of laparoscopic resection of large niches in the uterine caesarean scar on symptoms, ultrasound findings and quality of life: a prospective cohort study,” (in eng). BJOG 125(3):317–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14822 Zhang X, Yang M, Wang Q, Chen J, Ding J, Hua K (2016) Prospective evaluation of five methods used to treat cesarean scar defects, (in eng). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 134(3):336–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.04.011 Zhang Y (2016) A comparative study of transvaginal repair and laparoscopic repair in the management of patients with previous cesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(4):535–541 Nirgianakis K, Oehler R, Mueller M (2016) The Rendez-vous technique for treatment of caesarean scar defects: a novel combined endoscopic approach," (in eng). Surg Endosc 30(2):770–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4226-6 Li C et al (2016) Efficacy of combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine diverticulum: a retrospective analysis. Biomed Res Int 2016(1):1765624 Karampelas S, Salem Wehbe G, de Landsheere L, Badr DA, Tebache L, Nisolle M (2021) Laparoscopic isthmocele repair: efficacy and benefits before and after subsequent cesarean section. J Clin Med 10(24):5785 Dosedla E, Calda P (2017) Outcomes of laparoscopic treatment in women with cesarean scar syndrome. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Experimental Clin Res 23:4061 Hofgaard E, Westman K, Brunes M, Bossmar T, Persson J (2021) Cesarean scar pregnancy: Reproductive outcome after robotic laparoscopic removal with simultaneous repair of the uterine defect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biol 262:40–44 Hoffmann E, Vahanian S, Martinelli VT, Chavez M, Mesbah M, Nezhat FR (2021) Combined medical and minimally invasive robotic surgical approach to the treatment and repair of cesarean scar pregnancies. JSLS J Soc Laparoscopic Robot Surg. 25(3):e2021.00039 Wang H-F, Chen H-H, Ting W-H, Lu H-F, Lin H-H, Hsiao S-M (2021) Robotic or laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar defects or cesarean scar pregnancies with a uterine sound guidance. Taiwanese J Obstet Gynecol 60(5):821–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2021.07.007 Cardaillac C et al (2023) Robot-assisted laparoscopy repair of uterine isthmocele: A two-center observational study. Int J Gynecol Obstet 160(1):244–248 Persson J, Gunnarson G, Lindahl B (2009) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of a 12-week scar pregnancy with temporary occlusion of the uterine blood supply. J Robot Surg 3(1):53–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-009-0135-9 Chen Y, Chang Y, Yao S (2014) Transvaginal management of cesarean scar section diverticulum: a novel surgical treatment. Med Sci Monitor Int Med J Experimental Clin Res 20:1395 Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, Xie H-Z, Yao S-Z (2012) Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(4):454–458 Deng K et al (2021) Obstetric and gynecologic outcomes after the transvaginal repair of cesarean scar defect in a series of 183 women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(5):1051–1059 Chen H, Wang H, Zhou J, Xiong Y, Wang X (2019) Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula diagnosed in non-pregnant women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(3):526–534 Zhou X, Yang X, Chen H, Fang X, Wang X (2018) Obstetrical outcomes after vaginal repair of caesarean scar diverticula in reproductive-aged women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18:1–8 Vitale SG et al (2020) From hysteroscopy to laparoendoscopic surgery: what is the best surgical approach for symptomatic isthmocele? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301:33–52 Harjee R, Khinda J, Bedaiwy MA (2021) Reproductive outcomes following surgical management for isthmoceles: a systematic review, (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(7):1291-1302.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.03.012 Abdou AM, Ammar IMM (2018) Role of hysteroscopic repair of cesarean scar defect in women with secondary infertility. Middle East Fertility Soc J 23(4):505–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2018.06.005 Verberkt C, Meuleman SJK, Ket JC, van Wely M, Bouwsma E, Huirne JA (2022) Fertility and pregnancy outcomes after a uterine niche resection in women with and without infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. F S Rev 3(3):174–189 Tanos V, Toney ZA (2019) Uterine scar rupture-Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 59:115–131 Stegwee SI, Hehenkamp WJ, de Leeuw RA, de Groot CJ, Huirne JA (2020) Improved health-related quality of life in the first year after laparoscopic niche resection: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biol 245:174–180 Barnnart K, Furman I, Devoto L (1995) Attitudes and practice of couples regarding sexual relations during the menses and spotting. Contraception 51(2):93–98 Asoglu MR, Celik C, Ozturk E, Cavkaytar S, Bahceci M (2021) Impact of isthmocele on assisted reproductive treatment outcomes: an age-matched retrospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(5):1113–1120 OuYang Z, Yin Q, Xu Y, Ma Y, Zhang Q, Yu Y (2014) Heterotopic cesarean scar pregnancy: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. J Ultrasound Med 33(9):1533–1537 Fleisch M, Lux J, Schoppe M, Grieshaber K, Hampl M (2008) Placenta percreta leading to spontaneous complete uterine rupture in the second trimester: example of a fatal complication of abnormal placentation following uterine scarring. Gynecol Obstet Invest 65(2):81–83 Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu HM, Ananth CV (2006) Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption. Obstet Gynecol 107(4):771–778 Roberge S et al (2012) Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol 29(06):465–472 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe H, Nisand I (1996) Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 347(8997):281–284 Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions Stavridis Konstantinos: conceptualization, data collection and management, manuscript writing. Dimitrios Balafoutas: conceptualization, manuscript writing, review & editing. Nikos Vlahos: conceptualization, review & editing. Ralf Joukhadar: conceptualization, review & editing. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study. Ethical approval Not applicable. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Stavridis, K., Balafoutas, D., Vlahos, N. et al. Current surgical treatment of uterine isthmocele: an update of existing literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 311, 13–24 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07880-w Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07880-w