References
1. Tang X, Wang J, Du Y, et al. Caesarean scar defect: Risk factors and comparison of evaluation efficacy between transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019;242:1-6. 2. Tower AM, Frishman GN. Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:562–72. 3. Tulandi T, Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23:893–902. 4. Beilei Bi, Shanshan Gao, Fan Ruan. Analysis on the clinical association of uterine scar diverticulum with subsequent infertility in patients underwent cesarean sections. Medicine 2021; 100:41 5.Ling Huang , Sunxing Huang, Yuan Yuan. Reduced pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization in women with cesarean section scar diverticulum: A retrospective cohort study. Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2022;1: 146–154. 6. Cheng XY, Cheng L, Li WJ, et al. The effect of surgery on subsequent pregnancy outcomes among patients with cesarean scar diverticulum. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2018;141:212–6. 7. Zhou D, Wu F, Zhang Q, et al. Clinical outcomes of hysteroscopy-assisted transvaginal repair of cesarean scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2020; 46 (2):279-285. 8. Setubal A, Alves J, Osorio F, et al. Treatment for uterine isthmocele, a pouchlike defect at the site of a cesarean section scar. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25(1):38–46. 9. Vervoort A, van der Voet LF, Hehenkamp W, et al.Hysteroscopic resection of a uterine caesarean scar defect (niche) in women with postmenstrual spotting: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2018;125(3):326–334. 10. Zhao W, Liu G, Yang Q, et al. A new method using a Foley Catheter to locate the diverticulum in laparoscopic repair of uterine cesarean scar defects. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;223:14–17. 11. Chen H, Wang H, Zhou J, et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula diagnosed in non-pregnant women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26(3):526–534. 12. Lagana AS, Pacheco LA, Tinelli A, et al. Optimal timing and recommended route of delivery after hysteroscopic management of isthmocele? A consensus statement from the global congress on the hysteroscopy scientific committee. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25(4):558 13. Glavind J, Madsen LD, Uldbjerg N, Dueholm M. Ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obst Gyn 2013;42:207-12 14. Xingchen Zhou, Tao Zhang, Huayuan Qiao, et al.Evaluation of uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound in 607 nonpregnant women with a history of cesarean section. BMC Women’s Health 2021; 21:199 15. Zhou X, Yao M, Zhou J, Tan W, Wang H, Wang X. Defect width: the prognostic index for the vaginal repair of cesarean section diverticula. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;295(3):623-630. 16. Jieru Zhou, Min Yao,Husheng Wang, et al. Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula that resulted in improved postoperative menstruation. The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2016;06:013 17. Yizhi Wang, Qinyi Zhu, Feikai Lin, et al. Development and internal validation of a Nomogram for preoperative prediction of surgical treatment effect on cesarean section diverticulum. BMC Women’s Health 2019; 19:136 18. Songjun Liu, Linlin Chen, Guang Zhu, et al.Analysis of risk factors for cesarean scar Diverticulum. Medicine 2021, 100:17 19. Xian Ying Cheng, Li Cheng, Wen Juan Li, et al. The effect of surgery on subsequent pregnancy outcomes among patients with cesarean scar diverticulum. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2018; 141: 212–216 20. Feng YL, Li MX, Liang XQ, Li XM. Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012;19(4):498–502. 21. Gubbini G, Centini G, Nascetti D, et al. Surgical hysteroscopic treatment of cesarean-induced isthmocele in restoring fertility: prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18(2):234–7 22. Api M, Boza A, Gorgen H, Api O. Should cesarean scar defect be treated laparoscopically? a case report and review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:1145–52. 23. Hui Shi, Jingyan He, Yunhe Gao, et al.Treatment of C-section diverticula with hysteroscopic resection in women without childbearing intention: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Women’s Health 2020; 20:75 24. Abacjew-Chmylko A, Wydra DG, Olszewska H. Hysteroscopy in the treatment of uterine cesarean section scar diverticulum: a systematic review. Adv Med Sci 2017;62(2):230–239. 25. Ou YC, Chen YY, Lan KC, et al. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system for the treatment of intermenstrual spotting in patients with previous cesarean delivery scar defect. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2022; 48(1)
Figure legends
Figure 1: Simulated diagram of CSD: A: Depth, length, TRM, and thickness of the lower uterine segment (thickness) of the CSD; B: CSD width; C: Uterus opened to show the CSD; D-F: MRI, hysteroscopy and single-port laparoscopy in a representative CSD patient. The blue arrow indicates the CSD site. F: Severe pelvic adhesions were observed, and the uterus was completely adhered to the abdomen, changing the normal anatomy.
Figure 2: A: Nomogram for the prediction of optimal healing. The different variable values correspond to a point at the bottom of the figure, and the sum of the points for all the variables obtaining a total point corresponds to the probability of optimal healing at the bottom of the figure. B: Decision curves of the prediction model. The y-axis represents the net benefit. The blue line represents the nomogram, and the gray line represents the assumption that all CSD patients had optimal healing. The black line represents the assumption that no CSD patients had optimal healing. The higher the decision curve of the model is, the larger the net benefit. C-E: Performance of the nomogram. Calibration curves of the nomogram in the training cohort (C) and internal validation cohort (D). ROC curves in the training and internal validation cohorts (E).
Supplemental figure 1: Flow chart of the study