ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06620432HISEALUpdated May 7, 2026

High vs. Low Segmental Hysterotomy: Impact on Uterine Wall Defects Post-Cesarean

An interventional study of Low segment hysterotomy and High segment hysterotomy in Placenta Accreta Spectrum, sponsored by Fundacion Clinica Valle del Lili. Recruiting at 1 site in Colombia. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-07.

Sponsored by Fundacion Clinica Valle del Lili · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jun 2025; still recruiting 1 year 4 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
168
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The purpose of this clinical trial is to compare the incidence of defects in the uterine wall at the site of the scar (niche) and surgical complications when using high-segment versus low-segment hysterotomy, with both cross-suturing and non-cross-suturing techniques, in pregnant patients undergoing their first cesarean section.

Researchers will compare four arms:

  • Low Segment Hysterotomy + Crossed hysterorrhaphy
  • High Segment Hysterotomy + Crossed hysterorrhaphy
  • Low Segment Hysterotomy + Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy
  • High Segment Hysterotomy + Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy

Participants will:

  • Cesarean delivery
  • Attend a follow up appointment between 6 to 16 weeks post surgery where will be perform a transvaginal sonography.
Read the detailed description

This study will be conducted as a single-blind trial. Patients will be approached in the delivery room, where a comprehensive review of the inclusion and exclusion criteria checklist will be conducted to determine their eligibility for the study. Once eligible patients are identified, the study will be thoroughly explained to them, highlighting its purpose, potential benefits, and risks. This will be followed by a detailed discussion of the informed consent form to ensure that participants fully understand what their involvement entails.

Upon obtaining informed consent, a randomization process will be implemented to allocate participants to one of the four study arms. The assigned procedure will be performed by their attending gynecologist, who is familiar with their medical history and care needs. Throughout the study, various outcomes will be measured, including intraoperative findings, postoperative recovery, and post-discharge progress.

A transvaginal pelvic ultrasound will be ordered to be performed between 6 and 16 weeks postoperatively. During the single follow-up appointment, this imaging evaluation will be carried out to determine the presence or absence of an isthmocele, as well as to assess its characteristics, such as size and location, if present.

02

Conditions studied

  • Placenta Accreta Spectrum

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • High segmental hysterotomy
  • Low segmental hysterotomy
  • Caesarean section
  • hysterotomy defects
03

In context

Placenta Accreta

150 studies on the registry are indexed under Placenta Accreta; 40 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 168 is above the median of 70 across 67 interventional studies indexed under Placenta Accreta.

Browse Placenta Accreta studies →

Lead sponsor

Fundacion Clinica Valle del Lili is the lead sponsor of 25 studies on the registry; 8 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Pregnant women aged ≥ 18 years.
  • Confirmed pregnancy through clinical history or ultrasound between 36 and 42 weeks of gestation.
  • Indication by the attending gynecologist for a first cesarean section, either emergent or elective.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of myometrial intervention, such as myomectomy.
  • History of genetic or acquired conditions that alter the anatomy of the uterus.
  • History of coagulation disorders.
  • History of connective tissue disorders, such as Lupus and Scleroderma, which may affect healing.
  • Hemodynamically unstable patients due to a clinical condition prior to performing the cesarean section.
  • Failure to sign the .
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
168 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Low Segment Hysterotomy + Crossed hysterorrhaphy

    The participant will undergo a cesarean section in which the surgical technique of Low Segment Hysterotomy and Crossed hysterorrhaphy for uterine closure will be employed. The initial incision and skin closure will be performed at the discretion of the gynecologist.

    Procedure: Low segment hysterotomy · Procedure: Crossed hysterorrhaphy

  • Experimental
    High Segment Hysterotomy + Crossed hysterorrhaphy

    The participant will undergo a cesarean section in which the surgical technique of High Segment Hysterotomy and Crossed hysterorrhaphy for uterine closure will be employed. The initial incision and skin closure will be performed at the discretion of the gynecologist.

    Procedure: High segment hysterotomy · Procedure: Crossed hysterorrhaphy

  • Experimental
    Low Segment Hysterotomy + Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy

    The participant will undergo a cesarean section in which the surgical technique of Low Segment Hysterotomy and Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy for uterine closure will be employed. The initial incision and skin closure will be performed at the discretion of the gynecologist.

    Procedure: Low segment hysterotomy · Procedure: Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy

  • Experimental
    High Segment Hysterotomy + Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy

    The participant will undergo a cesarean section in which the surgical technique of High Segment Hysterotomy and Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy for uterine closure will be employed. The initial incision and skin closure will be performed at the discretion of the gynecologist.

    Procedure: High segment hysterotomy · Procedure: Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy

Interventions

  • ProcedureLow segment hysterotomy

    A low segment hysterotomy is a surgical procedure in which an incision is made in the lower segment of the uterus, typically during a cesarean section or other uterine surgeries. This approach is preferred because the lower uterine segment is thinner and less vascular, reducing the risk of bleeding and complications during and after the procedure. The incision is typically horizontal.

  • ProcedureHigh segment hysterotomy

    A high segment hysterotomy is a surgical procedure involving an incision in the upper segment of the uterus.

  • ProcedureCrossed hysterorrhaphy

    Crossed hysterorrhaphy is a surgical technique used to close the uterine incision following a hysterotomy, particularly during cesarean sections. In this method, the sutures are placed in a crossed or X-shaped pattern, which helps to evenly distribute tension across the incision site.

  • ProcedureNon-Crossed hysterorrhaphy

    Non-crossed hysterorrhaphy is a surgical technique used to close a uterine incision, typically after a hysterotomy, such as during a cesarean section. In this method, the sutures are placed in a linear, parallel fashion rather than in a crossed or X-shaped pattern

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Incidence of uterine wall defect at the scar site

    Performed via transvaginal ultrasound by a gynecologist trained in ultrasound who is blinded to the intervention

    Time frame: 6 to 16 weeks post-hysterotomy

Secondary outcomes

  1. Residual myometrial thickness of the uterine wall defect at the scar site

    Performed via transvaginal ultrasound by a gynecologist trained in ultrasound who is blinded to the intervention

    Time frame: 6 to 16 weeks post-hysterotomy

  2. Myometrial thickness in the portion immediately cephalad to the residual myometrial defect

    Performed via transvaginal ultrasound by a gynecologist trained in ultrasound who is blinded to the intervention

    Time frame: 6 to 16 weeks post-hysterotomy

  3. Myometrial thickness in the portion immediately caudal to the residual myometrial defect

    Performed via transvaginal ultrasound by a gynecologist trained in ultrasound who is blinded to the intervention

    Time frame: 6 to 16 weeks post-hysterotomy

  4. Size of the uterine wall defect

    Performed via transvaginal ultrasound by a gynecologist trained in ultrasound who is blinded to the intervention

    Time frame: 6 to 16 weeks post-hysterotomy

  5. Depth of the defect in the uterine wall

    Performed via transvaginal ultrasound by a gynecologist trained in ultrasound who is blinded to the intervention

    Time frame: 6 to 16 weeks post-hysterotomy

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 5;11(2):e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343. eCollection 2016. PubMed 26849801 ↗
  • Buca D, Liberati M, Cali G, Forlani F, Caisutti C, Flacco ME, Manzoli L, Familiari A, Scambia G, D'Antonio F. Influence of prenatal diagnosis of abnormally invasive placenta on maternal outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;52(3):304-309. doi: 10.1002/uog.19070. Epub 2018 Jul 29. PubMed 29660186 ↗
  • Silver RM, Fox KA, Barton JR, Abuhamad AZ, Simhan H, Huls CK, Belfort MA, Wright JD. Center of excellence for placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;212(5):561-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.018. Epub 2014 Nov 20. PubMed 25460838 ↗
  • Palacios-Jaraquemada JM. Placental adhesive disorders, 1st ed. Berlin: DeGruyter editors, 2012 161 pages. ISBN 978-3-11-028238-2.
  • Jauniaux E, Collins S, Burton GJ. Placenta accreta spectrum: pathophysiology and evidence-based anatomy for prenatal ultrasound imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jan;218(1):75-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.067. Epub 2017 Jun 24. PubMed 28599899 ↗
  • Vervoort AJ, Uittenbogaard LB, Hehenkamp WJ, Brolmann HA, Mol BW, Huirne JA. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015 Dec;30(12):2695-702. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev240. Epub 2015 Sep 25. PubMed 26409016 ↗
  • Fabres C, Aviles G, De La Jara C, Escalona J, Munoz JF, Mackenna A, Fernandez C, Zegers-Hochschild F, Fernandez E. The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Jul;22(7):695-700; quiz 701-2. doi: 10.7863/jum.2003.22.7.695. PubMed 12862268 ↗
  • Kremer TG, Ghiorzi IB, Dibi RP. Isthmocele: an overview of diagnosis and treatment. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2019 Jun 3;65(5):714-721. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.5.714. PubMed 31166450 ↗
  • Sung S, Mikes BA, Martingano DJ, Mahdy H. Cesarean Delivery. 2024 Dec 7. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546707/ PubMed 31536313 ↗
  • Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, Grivell RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 22;2014(7):CD004732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004732.pub3. PubMed 25048608 ↗
  • Cunningham FG, Larry C Gilstrap III, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Wenstrom KD, Gant NF. Obstetricia de Williams. Editorial Mac Graw Hill; 2019.
  • Shao Y, Pradhan M. Higher Incision at Upper Part of Lower Segment Caesarean Section. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2014 Apr-Jun;52(194):764-70. PubMed 26905701 ↗
  • Armstrong F, Mulligan K, Dermott RM, Bartels HC, Carroll S, Robson M, Corcoran S, Parland PM, Brien DO, Brophy D, Brennan DJ. Cesarean scar niche: An evolving concern in clinical practice. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 May;161(2):356-366. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14509. Epub 2022 Nov 21. PubMed 36317541 ↗
  • Monteagudo A, Carreno C, Timor-Tritsch IE. Saline infusion sonohysterography in nonpregnant women with previous cesarean delivery: the "niche" in the scar. J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Oct;20(10):1105-15. doi: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.10.1105. PubMed 11587017 ↗
  • Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;2008(1):CD004662. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2. PubMed 18254057 ↗
  • Marotta ML, Donnez J, Squifflet J, Jadoul P, Darii N, Donnez O. Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine scar defects diagnosed in nonpregnant women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 May-Jun;20(3):386-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.12.006. Epub 2013 Jan 26. PubMed 23357466 ↗
  • Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr;43(4):372-82. doi: 10.1002/uog.13199. PubMed 23996650 ↗
  • Palacios Jaraquemada JM, Garcia Monaco R, Barbosa NE, Ferle L, Iriarte H, Conesa HA. Lower uterine blood supply: extrauterine anastomotic system and its application in surgical devascularization techniques. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(2):228-34. doi: 10.1080/00016340601089875. PubMed 17364288 ↗
  • Dosedla E, Calda P. Can the final sonographic assessment of the cesarean section scar be predicted 6 weeks after the operation? Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;55(5):718-720. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.07.006. PubMed 27751422 ↗
  • Gupta T, Singal K, Gupta N, Kohli S, Kanyal M. Comparative Study of USG and MRI in Evaluation of Isthmocele. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2021 Jun;71(3):292-296. doi: 10.1007/s13224-021-01433-w. Epub 2021 Feb 17. PubMed 34408349 ↗
  • Savukyne E, Machtejeviene E, Paskauskas S, Ramoniene G, Nadisauskiene RJ. Transvaginal Sonographic Evaluation of Cesarean Section Scar Niche in Pregnancy: A Prospective Longitudinal Study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Oct 12;57(10):1091. doi: 10.3390/medicina57101091. PubMed 34684128 ↗
  • Chen HY, Chen SJ, Hsieh FJ. Observation of cesarean section scar by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990;16(5):443-7. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(90)90166-a. PubMed 2238250 ↗
  • Tower AM, Frishman GN. Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Sep-Oct;20(5):562-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.03.008. Epub 2013 May 14. PubMed 23680518 ↗
  • Jauniaux E, Jurkovic D, Hussein AM, Burton GJ. New insights into the etiopathology of placenta accreta spectrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Sep;227(3):384-391. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.02.038. Epub 2022 Mar 3. PubMed 35248577 ↗
  • Khong TY. The pathology of placenta accreta, a worldwide epidemic. J Clin Pathol. 2008 Dec;61(12):1243-6. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2008.055202. Epub 2008 Jul 19. PubMed 18641410 ↗
  • Tantbirojn P, Crum CP, Parast MM. Pathophysiology of placenta creta: the role of decidua and extravillous trophoblast. Placenta. 2008 Jul;29(7):639-45. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2008.04.008. Epub 2008 Jun 2. PubMed 18514815 ↗
  • Abdallah W, Najib B, Atallah D. The higher incision at upper part of lower uterine segment in caesarean section can decrease the incidence of placenta accreta spectrum. Med Hypotheses. 2020 Nov;144:110228. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110228. Epub 2020 Sep 2. PubMed 33254537 ↗
  • Vikhareva O, Rickle GS, Lavesson T, Nedopekina E, Brandell K, Salvesen KA. Hysterotomy level at Cesarean section and occurrence of large scar defects: a randomized single-blind trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Apr;53(4):438-442. doi: 10.1002/uog.20184. PubMed 30484920 ↗
  • Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, Suzuki M, Tamakoshi K, Kikkawa F. 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(4):429-34. doi: 10.1080/00016340500430436. PubMed 16612704 ↗
  • Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, Rosenberg VA, Buhimschi IA, Buhimschi CS. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Oct;110(4):808-13. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000284628.29796.80. PubMed 17906013 ↗
  • Yazicioglu F, Gokdogan A, Kelekci S, Aygun M, Savan K. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Jan 1;124(1):32-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.023. Epub 2005 Jul 14. PubMed 16023780 ↗
  • Yilmaz Baran S, Kalayci H, Dogan Durdag G, Yetkinel S, Alemdaroglu S, Cok T, Bulgan Kilicdag E. Single- or double-layer uterine closure techniques following cesarean: A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Mar;100(3):531-537. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14018. Epub 2020 Oct 30. PubMed 33029804 ↗
  • Roberge S, Demers S, Girard M, Vikhareva O, Markey S, Chaillet N, Moore L, Paris G, Bujold E. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):507.e1-507.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.916. Epub 2015 Nov 11. PubMed 26522861 ↗
  • Jaki T, Vasileiou D. Factorial versus multi-arm multi-stage designs for clinical trials with multiple treatments. Stat Med. 2017 Feb 20;36(4):563-580. doi: 10.1002/sim.7159. Epub 2016 Nov 2. PubMed 27804166 ↗
  • Saccone G, De Angelis MC, Zizolfi B, Gragnano E, Musone M, Zullo F, Bifulco G, Di Spiezio Sardo A. Monofilament vs multifilament suture for uterine closure at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022 May;4(3):100592. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100592. Epub 2022 Feb 4. PubMed 35131497 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — No individual participant data (IPD) will be shared, as disclosure of information related to the medical history of participants or health care workers is not permitted under applicable regulations.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 7, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06620432
Lead sponsor
Fundacion Clinica Valle del Lili
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 1, 2024
Start date
Jun 12, 2025
Primary completion
Nov 30, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
May 7, 2026

Study contacts

Albaro J. Nieto, M.D.
Contact
albaro.nieto@fvl.org.co
3319090 ext. 4022
Albaro J. Nieto, M.D.
principal investigator · Fundacion Clinica Valle del Lili

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion