Clinical and morphological features of the cesarean scar pregnancy

Clinical case




uterine scar, placenta percreta, ectopic pregnancy, myometrium


The features of timely diagnosis and possible risks of the cesarean scar pregnancy are demonstrated on the example of a clinical case.
This article presents analysis of pregnancy and childbirth of patient Sh., who was in the Obstetrics Department of the Kyiv City Maternity Hospital No. 1, as well as the results of a detailed morphological study of tissue characteristics during pregnancy in the scar on the uterus.
A complete presentation of the chorion with localization in the area of the postoperative scar and a defect in the uterine wall was established at the first and second ultrasound screening. The woman was informed about pregnancy risks, but she insisted on prolonging the pregnancy. A planned surgical intervention was performed in the period of 36–37 weeks. A bottom caesarean section was performed and a girl weighing 3610 g, height 55 cm was removed. Intraoperatively confirmed deformation with a defect of the front uterus wall in the area of a postoperative scar measuring 10 × 12 cm, filled with placental tissue in the form of aneurysmal altered vessels. It was confirmed that placenta grew into the wall of the uterus over the entire area of its location, which occupied the entire lower segment on the entire circumference of the uterine body. At the same time, a significant deformation of the front and back walls of the uterus was noted. Morphological examination revealed hypoxic degenerative changes in the placenta, from the side of the parietal plate, with sclerosis, hyalinosis and deposition of fibrinoid in the villi, as well as the presence of hemorrhages, petrifications and the formation of conglomerates and bridges between them.
Conclusions. It was founded the leading role in the mechanism of formation of atypical localization of pregnancy in the area of the scar after previous cesarean section was altered uterus tissue, where implantation occurred. There is a high probability of transition from ectopic pregnancy to scarring from liquid forms of ectopic pregnancy in the category of more frequent pathologies due to the increase in the frequency of cesarean sections.

Author Biographies

N.P. Honcharuk, P.L. Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine; Municipal Non-Profit Enterprise “Kyiv City Maternity Hospital No. 1”, Kyiv

MD, associate professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology Department;

O.O. Diadyk, P.L. Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv

MD, professor, head of the Department of Pathological and Topographic Anatomy

N.R. Kovyda, Municipal Non-Profit Enterprise “Kyiv City Maternity Hospital No. 1” , Kyiv

PhD, obstetrician-gynecologist

O.Y. Lysenko, Municipal Non-Profit Enterprise “Kyiv City Maternity Hospital No. 1”, Kyiv

ScD, associate professor, deputy director for organization, scientific and methodological work

O.B. Shelest, Kyiv Regional Clinical Hospital, Kyiv

Pathologist, Pathomorphology Department


  1. Betran, A.P., Torloni, M.R., Zhang, J.J., Gülmezoglu, A.M. “WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates.” BJOG 123.5 (2016): 667–70.
  2. Fetisheva, L.E., Ushakova, G.A. “Rare forms of ectopic pregnancy. Problems of diagnostics, treatment and restoration of fertility.” Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist 17.4 (2017): 11–9.
  3. Rubina, E.V., Davydov A.I., Strizhakov, A.N., Shakhlamova, M.N. “Rare forms of ectopic pregnancy: a systemic approach to diagnosis and treatment.” Issues of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology 17.2 (2018): 5–11.
  4. Baranovskaya, E.I. “Ectopia of the fetal egg and heterotopic pregnancy.” Current issues of obstetrics and gynecology in Belarus 4 (2018): 9–11.
  5. Seow, K.-M., Huang, L.-W., Lin, Y.-H., et al. “Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management.” Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23.3 (2004): 247–53.
  6. Gonzalez, N., Tulandi, T. “Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review.” J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24.5 (2017): 731–8.
  7. Maheux-Lacroix, S., Li, F., Bujold, E., et al. “Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options.” J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24.6 (2017): 915–25.
  8. Birch Petersen, K., Hoffmann, E., Rifbjerg Larsen, C., et al. “Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies.” Fertil Steril 105.4 (2016): 958–67.
  9. Osborn, D.A., Williams, T.R., Craig, B.M. “Cesarean scar pregnancy: sonograpahic and magnetic resonance imaging findings, complications, and treatment.” J Ultrasound Med 31.9 (2012): 1449–56.
  10. El-badawy Awad, E.S., Samy El-agwany, A., Mahmoud El-habashy, A., et al. “Lower uterine segment pregnancy (Cesarean scar pregnancy and early placenta accreta): a rising complication from cesarean section with possible and similar early ultrasound diagnoses and management.” Egypt J Radiol Nuc Med 46.4 (2015): 977–80.
  11. Timor-Tritsch, I.E., Monteagudo, A., Bennett, T., et al. “A new minimally invasive treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy and cervical pregnancy.” Am J Obstet Gynecol 215.3 (2016): 351.e1–8.
  12. Aich, R., Solanki, N., Kekadiya, K., et al. “Ectopic pregnancy in caesarean section scar: a case report.” Radiol Case Rep 10.4 (2015): 68–71.
  13. Timor-Tritsch, I.E., Monteagudo, A., Cali, G., et al. “Cesarean scar pregnancy and early placenta accreta share common histology.” Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43.4 (2014): 383–95.
  14. Riaz, R.M., Williams, T.R., Craig, B.M., et al. “Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: imaging features, current treatment options, and clinical outcomes.” Abdom Imaging 40.7 (2015): 2589–99.



How to Cite

Honcharuk, N., Diadyk, O., Kovyda, N., Lysenko, O., & Shelest, O. (2022). Clinical and morphological features of the cesarean scar pregnancy: Clinical case. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (65), 67–70.



Pregnancy and childbirth