Techniques for caesarean section

Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Caesarean section (CS) is the most performed major surgery worldwide. Surgical techniques used for CS vary widely and there is no internationally accepted standardization. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to summarize the evidence on surgical techniques or procedures related to CS.

Methods

Searches were conducted from database inception to 31 January 2024 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).

Findings

The analysis included 38 SRs (16 Cochrane and 22 non-Cochrane) published between 2004-2024 involving 628 RCT with a total of 190,349 participants. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality (AMSTAR 2). The SRs presented 345 procedure-outcome comparisons (237 procedure versus procedure, 108 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 256 comparisons, clear evidence of benefit for 40, possible benefit for 17, no difference of effect for 13, clear evidence of harm for 14, and possible harm for 5. We found no SRs for 7 pre-defined procedures. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine, Joel-Cohen-based abdominal incision, uterine incision with blunt dissection and cephalad-caudal expansion, cord traction for placental extraction, manual cervical dilatation in pre-labour CS, changing gloves, chromic catgut suture for uterine closure, non-closure of the peritoneum, closure of subcutaneous tissue, and negative pressure wound therapy are procedures associated with benefits for relevant outcomes.

Interpretation

Current evidence suggests that several CS surgical procedures improve outcomes but also reveals a lack of or inconclusive evidence for many commonly used procedures. There is an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines standardizing techniques for CS, and trials to fill existing knowledge gaps.

Funding

UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Effect of ropivacaine, mepivacaine or the combination of ropivacaine and mepivacaine for epidural anaesthesia on the postoperative recovery in patients undergoing caesarean section: a randomized, prospective, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Anaesthetic methods and drugs with rapid onset, rapid recovery and better postoperative analgesia are more suitable for rapid recovery in obstetric anaesthesia. We formulated the following hypothesis: a combination of mepivacaine and ropivacaine could provide a longer analgesic effect and have more advantages in terms of rapid-recovery indicators.

METHODS

A total of 180 pregnant women scheduled to undergo elective caesarean sections were randomly assigned to three surgical groups, which received 2% mepivacaine (Group M), 2% mepivacaine + 0.75% ropivacaine (Group MR) (Volume 1:1) or 0.75% ropivacaine (Group R) through an epidural catheter. The situation of postoperative analgesia and other indicators of rapid recovery were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty patients were included in the final analysis. Their demographic data were similar. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of Group MR and Group R were lower than Group M at 1 and 2 h after surgery both at rest and with movement (P < 0.05), and the time to first ambulation in Group MR (17.38 ± 2.06 h) and Group M (17.20 ± 2.09 h) was shorter than that in Group R (22.18 ± 1.74 h) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Application of 2% mepivacaine combined with 0.75% ropivacaine for epidural anaesthesia can provide longer postoperative analgesia and earlier ambulation, these effect may be more suitable than that of 2% mepivacaine or 0.75% ropivacaine alone for caesarean section.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR 2300078288; date of registration: 04/12/2023).

Comparison between the modified French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section and standard cesarean technique-a randomized double-blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section is a cesarean delivery technique, which includes a vertical fascial incision to the left of the linea alba and an extraperitoneal approach to the uterus. The presumed benefits of this technique are decreased postoperative pain and accelerated recovery. However, evidence supporting these impressions is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare maternal recovery after French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section vs standard cesarean delivery technique.

STUDY DESIGN

In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, women undergoing elective cesarean delivery at term were allocated into French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section vs standard cesarean delivery technique. A modified French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section technique was used, adhering to all French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section operative steps except for the extraperitoneal approach. In both groups, the use of intravenous hydration, intrathecal morphine, and bladder catheter was avoided, and all women were encouraged to stand and walk 3 to 4 hours after the operation. The primary adverse composite outcome included either of the following: a visual analog scale score of >6 at 3 to 4 hours after the operation, an inability to stand up and walk to the restroom 3 to 4 hours after the operation, and a 15-Item Quality of Recovery (QoR) questionnaire score of <90 at 24 hours after the operation. The women were followed up for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 116 women were included in the trial (58 in each group). The adverse composite outcome did not differ between the 2 groups (38.9% for the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group vs 53.8% for the regular cesarean delivery group; P=.172). In both groups, more than 90% of the women were able to get up and walk 3 to 4 hours after the operation. Compared with the standard cesarean delivery group, the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group had a longer duration of the operation (43.7±11.2 vs 54.4±11.3 minutes; P<.001), a higher rate of intraoperative complications (0.0% vs 13.8%; P=.006), and a higher rate of umbilical cord pH level of <7.2 (3.4% vs 17.2%; P=.029) were noted. Evaluation via phone call 1 week after the operation showed better quality of recovery scores in the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group than in the standard cesarean delivery group (27.1±8.4 vs 24.6±8.0; P=.043). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

As excellent maternal recovery was noted in both groups, we believe that the main factor affecting this recovery is the perioperative management (including avoidance of the use of intraoperative intravenous hydration, intrathecal morphine, and bladder catheter, with early postoperative mobilization). The maternal and neonatal safety outcomes of the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section technique remain to be proven by larger-scale high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Variations in uterine closure technique: an institutional survey of obstetricians and implications for patient counseling and prevention of adverse sequelae

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diversity of uterine closure techniques (UCTs) among providers in one institution and evaluate concurrent consideration of adverse outcomes for patient counseling, provisional care, and prevention.

METHODS

Forty-four obstetricians at NYU Langone Health were emailed a survey of their uterine closure technique, patient counseling, and practice experience. Results were stratified by years of practice: ≤5, 5-20, and 20-40 years.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine obstetricians (88.6%) completed the survey. Among those, a blunt uterine opening was preferred by 29 (74.4%), and a mid-lower segment location was favored by 34 (87.2%). At uterine closure, the endometrium was included by 20 (51.3%), with half a centimeter or more incorporated in the myometrial closure, whereas 15 (38.5%) did not factor in the endometrium's presence. Closure duration varied from 1 to 20 min, with 21 (53.9%) lasting 1-5 min and 12 (30.8%) lasting 5-10 min. All physicians were familiar with the potential post-cesarean complications and counseled their patients accordingly; 25 (64.1%) at the first post-op visit while 14 (35.9%) did so before the next conception. Practitioners with fewer years in practice endorsed the safety of up to five consecutive cesarean births, while those with more experience approved up to ten. Thirty-two obstetricians (82.1%) stated that the risk of abnormal placentation is exclusively associated with the number of cesarean sections, whereas five (12.8%) senior obstetricians asserted that individual surgical techniques are most impactful.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey illustrates that various UCTs are performed irrespective of potential adverse sequelae and without consideration for subsequent patient counseling and care. Ongoing research must study the impact of UCT on scar healing to formulate preventive strategies for post-cesarean complications.

Cephalad-caudad versus transverse blunt expansion of the low transverse hysterotomy during cesarean delivery decreases maternal morbidity: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Cesarean delivery is the most prevalent surgical procedure worldwide, reaching approximately 29.7 million cases in 2015. It is directly associated with an increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity rates in the absence of malpresentation. Several techniques have been investigated, and there is evidence that cephalad-caudad expansion of the uterine incision might be associated with improved maternal outcomes compared with traditional transverse blunt expansion. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of cephalad-caudad expansion on adverse maternal outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, risk of uterine vessel injury, and tearing of the lower uterine segment.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2021.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that assessed the impact of the cephalad-caudad blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision during cesarean delivery rather than those of transverse blunt expansion were selected for inclusion.

METHODS

Effect sizes were calculated with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model in R. Trial sequential analysis was performed to evaluate the adequacy of sample sizes.

RESULTS

Cephalad-caudad blunt expansion of the uterine incision was associated with a lower prevalence of unintended incision extension (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.86) and uterine vessel injury (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.73). However, these complications were not accompanied by the increased need for additional suture placement (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-4.12) or transfusion rates (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-2.03). Similarly, the intraoperative duration was comparable with cases treated with transverse blunt expansion (mean difference = -0.45 minutes; 95% confidence interval -2.12 to 1.21) and the risk of intentional incision extension in the form of an inverted T (relative risk, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-1.52). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the required sample size was reached in the unintended incision extension and uterine vessel injury outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The findings of our study suggested that cephalad-caudad blunt expansion of the uterine incision is superior to transverse expansion in terms of reducing unintended incision extension and uterine vessel injury.

Association between surgical technique, adhesions and morbidity in women with repeat caesarean section: a retrospective study in a rural hospital in Western Tanzania

Background

The worldwide incidence of birth by Caesarean Section (CS) is rising. Many births after a previous CS are by repeat surgery, either by an elective CS or after a failed trial of labour. Adhesion formation is associated with increased maternal morbidity in patients with repeat CSs. In spite of large-scale studies the relation between the incidence of adhesion formation and CS surgical technique is unclear. This study aims to assess maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality after repeat CSs in a rural hospital in a low-income country (LIC) and to analyse the effect of surgical technique on the formation of adhesions.

Methods

A cross-sectional, retrospective medical records study of all women undergoing CS in Ndala Hospital in 2011 and 2012.

Results

Of the 3966 births, 450 were by CS (11.3%), of which 321 were 1^st CS, 80 2^nd CS, 36 3^rd CS, 12 4^th and one 5^th CS (71, 18, 8, 3 and 0.2% respectively). Adhesions were considered to be severe in 56% of second CSs and 64% of third CSs. In 2^nd CSs, adhesions were not associated with closure of the peritoneum at 1^st CS, but were associated with the prior use of a midline skin incision. There was no increase in maternal morbidity when severe adhesions were present. Adverse neonatal outcome was more prevalent when severe adhesions were present, but this was statistically non-significant (16% vs 6%).

Conclusions

Our results give insight into the practice of repeat CS in our rural hospital. Adhesions after CSs are common and occur more frequently after midline skin incision at 1^st CS compared to a transverse incision. Reviewing local data is important to evaluate quality of care and to compare local outcomes to the literature.

TRAAP2 - TRAnexamic Acid for Preventing postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: a multicenter randomized, doubleblind, placebo- controlled trial - a study protocol

Background

An antifibrinolytic agent that blocks lysine-binding sites on plasminogen molecules, tranexamic acid reduces bleeding-related mortality in women with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), especially administered fairly soon after delivery. According to the randomized controlled trials thus far reported for PPH prevention after cesarean deliveries (n = 16), women who received tranexamic acid had significantly less postpartum blood loss and no increase in severe adverse effects. These were, however, primarily small single-center studies that had fundamental methodological flaws. Multicenter randomized controlled trials with adequate power are necessary to demonstrate its value persuasively before tranexamic acid goes into widespread use for the prevention of PPH after cesarean deliveries.

Methods/design

This study will be a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups including 4524 women with cesarean deliveries before or during labor, at a term ≥34 weeks, modeled on our previous study of tranexamic acid administered after vaginal deliveries. Treatment (either tranexamic acid 1 g or placebo) will be administered intravenously just after birth. All women will also receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. The primary outcome will be the incidence of PPH, defined by a calculated estimated blood loss > 1000 mL or a red blood cell transfusion before day 2 postpartum. This study will have 80% power to show a 20% reduction in the incidence of PPH, from 15.0 to 12.0%.

Discussion

As an, inexpensive, easy to administer drug that can be add to the routine management of cesarean births in delivery rooms, tranexamic acid is a promising candidate for preventing PPH after these births. This large, adequately powered, multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial seeks to determine if the benefits of the routine prophylactic use of tranexamic acid after cesarean delivery significantly outweigh its risks.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03431805 (February 12, 2018).

Laparoscopic Management of Adhesions Developed after Peritoneal Nonclosure in Primary Cesarean Section Delivery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to laparoscopically investigate the effects of peritoneal nonclosure on the sites, types, and degrees of adhesions developed after primary caesarean section (CS) in women complaining of secondary infertility after first CS delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study, where 250 women suffering from secondary infertility after their first CS had been recruited. They had been classified into group I (n = 89), where both the visceral and parietal peritoneum had been left opened; group II (n = 75), where only the parietal peritoneum had been closed; and group III (n = 86), where both peritoneal layers had been closed. Laparoscopy had been used to classify those adhesions according to the location, severity, and their adverse impact on the reproductive capacity.

RESULTS

Both adnexal and nonadnexal adhesions had been found significantly higher in group I, while adnexal types of adhesions were significantly higher after nonclosure of the visceral peritoneum in group II. Laparoscopic tubal surgery performed included tubo-ovariolysis, fimbrioplasty, and neosalpingostomy. Pregnancy rate was found correlating with the adnexal adhesion location and score.

CONCLUSION

Nonclosure of the peritoneum in CS is associated with more adhesion formation, which might adversely affect the future women reproduction.

Cosmetic outcomes of cesarean section scar; subcuticular suture versus intradermal buried suture

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare cosmetic outcomes and overall satisfaction rate of cesarean section scar between conventional subcuticular suture and intradermal buried vertical mattress.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled to the study by chart review. A scar assessment was obtained retrospectively through a telephone survey. The patient component of the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) was utilized along with the overall satisfaction of the patient regarding their cesarean section scar and their willingness to choose the same skin closure technique when anticipating their next cesarean section.

RESULTS

A total of 303 cases of cesarean section was recruited, 102 finished telephone surveys were calculated for the analyses. Subcuticular suture was regarded as control group (n=52) and intradermal buried suture as test group (n=50). The PSAS score of the test group (mean, 21.8) was lower than that of the control group (mean, 28), with a statistical significance (P=0.02). Overall satisfaction rate did not differ between the two groups. Two parameters of the PSAS score and the level of overall satisfaction showed significant correlation (Pearson's r, -0.63; P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

We suggested the use of intradermal buried vertical mattress as a cosmetically superior skin closure method for application in cesarean sections over subcuticular stitch.

Topic anaesthesia with a eutectic mixture of lidocaine/prilocaine cream after elective caesarean section: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

Aim of the study was to investigate the topical application of a eutectic mixture of lidocaine/prilocaine (EMLA^®) cream after caesarean section (CS) and its effect on postoperative pain, time to mobilisation, and time to discharge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 189 pregnant women were enrolled; full data sets were available for 139 of them, who were prospectively randomised to receive either placebo (control group) or EMLA^® cream (study group) on the CS lesion directly as well as 24 h after surgery. Postoperative pain was assessed 24 and 48 h after surgery using the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Additional analgesic pain medication on demand was assessed in both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 62 women were allocated randomly to the study and 77 patients to the control group before primary CS. There were no statistically significant differences regarding demographic and surgical parameters comparing both collectives. In addition, the postoperative total pain scores after 24 h [McGill total: 38.5 (0-102) vs. 50 (0-120) p = 0.0889] as well as after 48 h [24 (0-79) vs. 30.5 (0-92); p = 0.1455] showed no significant differences. Furthermore, time to mobilisation (hours) [9.68 (2.18-51.38) vs. 9.47 (4.18-41.77); p = 0.5919] and time to discharge (hours) [98.6 (54.08-170.15) vs. 98.2 (43.45-195.87); p = 0.5331] were comparable.

CONCLUSION

The postoperative application of EMLA^® cream after CS did not reduce postoperative pain or time to mobilisation or discharge, so that its use in this context has to be seen critically.

Cesarean delivery technique among HIV positive women with sub-optimal antenatal care uptake at the Douala General Hospital, Cameroon: case series report

BACKGROUND

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pandemic is a serious public health problem worldwide, especially in low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) is a major concern to those countries. Cesarean section has been described in the literature to be effective in the prevention of mother to child transmission (MTCT).

CASE SERIES PRESENTATION

We present a series of seven cases of HIV positive pregnant women with sub-optimal antenatal care up-take who delivered by cesarean section at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Douala General Hospital. During the cesarean section the fetal head was delivered through the uterine incision without rupture of amniotic membranes. The amniotic membranes were ruptured after delivery of the fetal head, and then the rest of the body was delivered.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the study participants had multiple risk factors for preterm labour. When a good cesarean section technique is used in women with high viral load and low CD4 counts, risk of MTCT HIV are greatly reduced even in low-income countries.

Standard of Open Surgical Repair of Suprapubic Incisional Hernias

BACKGROUND

Suprapubic incisional hernias (SIH) are a rare wall defect, whose surgical management is challenging because of limited literature. The proximity of the hernia to bone, vascular, nerve, and urinary structures, and the absence of posterior rectus sheath in this location imply adequate technique of surgical repair. We aimed to describe a cohort of female patients operated on for SIH after gynecological surgery using a homogeneous surgical technique and to report surgical outcomes.

METHODS

The records of all consecutive patients operated on for SIH in a specialized surgical center between January 2009 and January 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The same open technique was performed, i.e., using a mesh placed inferiorly in the preperitoneal space of Retzius, with large overlap, and fixed on the Cooper's ligaments, through the muscles superiorly and laterally with strong tension, in a sublay or underlay position.

RESULTS

The cohort included 71 female patients. SIH were recurrent in 31% of patients and was related to cesarean in 32 patients (45.1%) and to gynecologic surgery in 39 patients (54.9%). The mesh was totally extraperitoneal in 76.1% of patients. The postoperative mortality rate was null. The rate of specific surgical complications was 29.6%. After a median follow-up of 30.3 months, the recurrence rate was 7%.

CONCLUSION

The open approach for SIH repair was safe and efficient. Due to the paucity of adequate scientific studies, this reproducible open method could help moving toward a standardization of SIH surgical management.

Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The CORONIS trial reported differences in short-term maternal morbidity when comparing five pairs of alternative surgical techniques for caesarean section. Here we report outcomes at 3 years follow-up.

METHODS

The CORONIS trial was a pragmatic international 2 × 2 × 2 × 2× 2 non-regular fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial done at 19 sites in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sudan. Pregnant women were eligible if they were to undergo their first or second caesarean section through a planned transverse abdominal incision. Women were randomly assigned by a secure web-based allocation system to one intervention from each of the three assigned pairs. All investigators, surgeons, and participants were unmasked to treatment allocation. In this follow-up study, we compared outcomes at 3 years following blunt versus sharp abdominal entry, exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair, single versus double layer closure of the uterus, closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum, and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 for uterine repair. Outcomes included pelvic pain; deep dyspareunia; hysterectomy and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. Outcomes were assessed masked to the original trial allocation. This trial is registered with the Current Controlled Trials registry, number ISRCTN31089967.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014, 13,153 (84%) women were followed-up for a mean duration of 3·8 years (SD 0·86). For blunt versus sharp abdominal entry there was no evidence of a difference in risk of abdominal hernias (adjusted RR 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·11). We also recorded no evidence of a difference in risk of death or serious morbidity of the children born at the time of trial entry (0·99, 0·83-1·17). For exteriorisation of the uterus versus intra-abdominal repair there was no evidence of a difference in risk of infertility (0·91, 0·71-1·18) or of ectopic pregnancy (0·50, 0·15-1·66). For single versus double layer closure of the uterus there was no evidence of a difference in maternal death (0·78, 0·46-1·32) or a composite of pregnancy complications (1·20, 0·75-1·90). For closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum there was no evidence of a difference in any outcomes relating to symptoms associated with pelvic adhesions such as infertility (0·80, 0·61-1·06). For chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures there was no evidence of a difference in the main comparisons for adverse pregnancy outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy, such as uterine rupture (3·05, 0·32-29·29). Overall, severe adverse outcomes were uncommon in these settings.

INTERPRETATION

Although our study was not powered to detect modest differences in rare but serious events, there was no evidence to favour one technique over another. Other considerations will probably affect clinical practice, such as the time and cost saving of different approaches.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council and the Department for International Development.

Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review

The choice of the type of abdominal incision performed in caesarean delivery is made chiefly on the basis of the individual surgeon's experience and preference. A general consensus on the most appropriate surgical technique has not yet been reached. The aim of this systematic review of the literature is to compare the two most commonly used transverse abdominal incisions for caesarean delivery, the Pfannenstiel incision and the modified Joel-Cohen incision, in terms of acute and chronic post-surgical pain and their subsequent influence in terms of quality of life. Electronic database searches formed the basis of the literature search and the following databases were searched in the time frame between January 1997 and December 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE Sciencedirect and the Cochrane Library. Key search terms included: "acute pain", "chronic pain", "Pfannenstiel incision", "Misgav-Ladach", "Joel Cohen incision", in combination with "Caesarean Section", "abdominal incision", "numbness", "neuropathic pain" and "nerve entrapment". Data on 4771 patients who underwent caesarean section (CS) was collected with regards to the relation between surgical techniques and postoperative outcomes defined as acute or chronic pain and future pregnancy desire. The Misgav-Ladach incision was associated with a significant advantage in terms of reduction of post-surgical acute and chronic pain. It was indicated as the optimal technique in view of its characteristic of reducing lower pelvic discomfort and pain, thus improving quality of life and future fertility desire. Further studies which are not subject to important bias like pre-existing chronic pain, non-standardized analgesia administration, variable length of skin incision and previous abdominal surgery are required.

Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at caesarean section may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to evaluate whether this step should be omitted or routinely performed.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of non-closure as an alternative to closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section on intraoperative and immediate- and long-term postoperative outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 November 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing leaving the visceral or parietal peritoneum, or both, unsutured at caesarean section with a technique which involves suturing the peritoneum in women undergoing elective or emergency caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked it for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 29 trials were included in this review and 21 trials (17,276 women) provided data that could be included in an analysis. The quality of the trials was variable. 1. Non-closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum versus closure of both parietal layersSixteen trials involving 15,480 women, were included and analysed, when both parietal peritoneum was left unclosed versus when both peritoneal surfaces were closed. Postoperative adhesion formation was assessed in only four trials with 282 women, and no difference was found between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29). There was significant reduction in the operative time (mean difference (MD) -5.81 minutes, 95% CI -7.68 to -3.93). The duration of hospital stay in a total of 13 trials involving 14,906 women, was also reduced (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05) days. In a trial involving 112 women, reduced chronic pelvic pain was found in the peritoneal non-closure group. 2. Non-closure of visceral peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal surfacesThree trials involving 889 women were analysed. There was an increase in adhesion formation (two trials involving 157 women, RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.16) which was limited to one trial with high risk of bias.There was reduction in operative time, postoperative days in hospital and wound infection. There was no significant reduction in postoperative pyrexia. 3. Non-closure of parietal peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal layersThe two identified trials involved 573 women. Neither study reported on postoperative adhesion formation. There was reduction in operative time and postoperative pain with no difference in the incidence of postoperative pyrexia, endometritis, postoperative duration of hospital stay and wound infection. In only one study, postoperative day one wound pain assessed by the numerical rating scale, (MD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.23) and chronic abdominal pain d by the visual analogue score (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.81) was reduced in the non-closure group. 4. Non-closure versus closure of visceral peritoneum when parietal peritoneum is closed.There was reduction in all the major urinary symptoms of frequency, urgency and stress incontinence when the visceral peritoneum is left unsutured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a reduction in operative time across all the subgroups. There was also a reduction in the period of hospitalisation post-caesarean section except in the subgroup where parietal peritoneum only was not sutured where there was no difference in the period of hospitalisation. The evidence on adhesion formation was limited and inconsistent. There is currently insufficient evidence of benefit to justify the additional time and use of suture material necessary for peritoneal closure. More robust evidence on long-term pain, adhesion formation and infertility is needed.

Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is a common operation. Techniques vary depending on both the clinical situation and the preferences of the operator.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 1) different types of uterine incision, 2) methods of performing the uterine incision, 3) suture materials and technique of uterine closure (including single versus double layer closure of the uterine incision) on maternal health, infant health, and healthcare resource use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 September 2013) and reference lists of all identified papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing various types and closure of uterine incision during caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the stated eligibility criteria and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 60 studies for consideration, of which 27 randomised trials involving 17,808 women undergoing caesarean section were included in the review. Overall, the methodological quality of the trials was variable, with 12 of the 27 included trials adequately describing the randomisation sequence, with less than half describing adequately methods of allocation concealment, and only six trials indicating blinding of outcome assessors.Two trials compared auto-suture devices with traditional hysterotomy involving 300 women. No statistically significant difference in febrile morbidity between the stapler and conventional incision groups was apparent (risk ratio (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 2.20).Five studies were included in the review that compared blunt versus sharp dissection when performing the uterine incision involving 2141 women. There were no statistically significant differences identified for the primary outcome febrile morbidity following blunt or sharp extension of the uterine incision (four studies; 1941 women; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05). Mean blood loss (two studies; 1145 women; average mean difference (MD) -55.00 mL; 95% CI -79.48 to -30.52), and the need for blood transfusion (two studies; 1345 women; RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.62) were significantly lower following blunt extension.A single trial compared transverse with cephalad-caudad blunt extension of the uterine incision, involving 811 women, and while mean blood loss was reported to be lower following transverse extension (one study; 811 women; MD 42.00 mL; 95% CI 1.31 to 82.69), the clinical significance of such a small volume difference is of uncertain clinical relevance. There were no other statistically significant differences identified for the limited outcomes reported.A single trial comparing chromic catgut with polygactin-910, involving 9544 women reported that catgut closure versus closure with polygactin was associated with a significant reduction in the need for blood transfusion (one study, 9544 women, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76) and a significant reduction in complications requiring re-laparotomy (one study, 9544 women, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89).Nineteen studies were identified comparing single layer with double layer closure of the uterus, with data contributed to the meta-analyses from 14 studies. There were no statistically significant differences identified for the primary outcome, febrile morbidity (nine studies; 13,890 women; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12). Although the meta-analysis suggested single layer closure was associated with a reduction in mean blood loss, heterogeneity is high and this limits the clinical applicability of the result. There were no differences identified in risk of blood transfusion (four studies; 13,571 women; average RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.15; I² = 49%), or other reported clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Caesarean section is a common procedure performed on women worldwide. There is increasing evidence that for many techniques, short-term maternal outcomes are equivalent. Until long-term health effects are known, surgeons should continue to use the techniques they prefer and currently use.

The effect on perioperative bleeding of placental extraction from an exteriorized uterus during caesarean section

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect on perioperative bleeding of an alternative technique for Caesarean section, in which placental extraction is performed while the uterus is exteriorized.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective matched cohort study using data obtained through chart review. Group 1 included women who had CS performed using the technique of placental removal while the uterus was exteriorized, and group 2 included women who had CS performed using the conventional method of placental removal from a non-exteriorized uterus. Women in each group were matched for number of previous Caesarean sections, indications for CS, and gestational age. The primary outcome was the difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin concentrations. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of blood transfusion, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, the incidence of postoperative endometritis, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 90 charts were reviewed (45 per group). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. The mean decrease in hemoglobin concentration was 22% less in women who had placental extraction from an exteriorized uterus than in those who had the conventional placental extraction (13.2g/L vs. 16.9 g/L, P=0.016). Among secondary outcomes, women in group 1 had a lower mean EBL (531.1 mL vs. 691.1 mL, P<0.05) and a shorter mean duration of surgery (28.0 minutes vs. 40.5 minutes, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Exteriorizing the uterus prior to removal of the placenta during CS may decrease intraoperative and immediate postoperative bleeding compared with the conventional technique. Further studies on this technique are indicated.

Maternal and fetal effect of misgav ladach cesarean section in nigerian women: a randomized control study

Background:

The poor utilisation of the Misgav-Ladach (ML) caesarean section method in our environment despite its proven advantage has been attributed to several factors including its non-evaluation. A well designed and conducted trial is needed to provide evidence to convince clinician of its advantage over Pfannenstiel based methods.

Aim:

To evaluate the outcome of ML based caesarean section among Nigerian women.

Subjects and Methods:

Randomised controlled open label study of 323 women undergoing primary caesarean section in Lagos Nigeria. The women were randomised to either ML method or Pfannenstiel based (PB) caesarean section technique using computer generated random numbers.

Results:

The mean duration of surgery (P < 0.001), time to first bowel motion (P = 0.01) and ambulation (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the ML group compared to PB group. Postoperative anaemia (P < 0.01), analgesic needs (P = 0.02), extra suture use, estimated blood loss (P < 0.01) and post-operative complications (P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the ML group compared to PB group. Though the mean hospital stay was shorter (5.8 days) in the ML group as against 6.0 days, the difference was not significant statistically (P = 0.17). Of the fetal outcome measures compared, it was only in the fetal extraction time that there was significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.001). The mean fetal extraction time was 162 sec in ML group compared to 273 sec in the PB group.

Conclusions:

This study confirmed the already established benefit of ML techniques in Nigerian women, as it relates to the postoperative outcomes, duration of surgery, and fetal extraction time. The technique is recommended to clinicians as its superior maternal and fetal outcome and cost saving advantage makes it appropriate for use in poor resource setting.

Wound drainage for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous and sub rectus sheath wound drains are sometimes used in women who have undergone caesarean section. The indications for using drains vary by clinician.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of using a wound drain with not using a wound drain at caesarean section, and of different types of drain, on maternal health and healthcare resource use.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid Medline; Ovid Medline - In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL. No date, language or publication status limits were applied

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they allocated women to groups at random and they compared any type of wound drain with no wound drainage, or with any other type of drain, in women undergoing caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were evaluated for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results. This was done by two reviewers according to pre-stated eligibility criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials that recruited 5248 women were included in the review. Meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference in the risk of wound infection, other wound complications, febrile morbidity or pain in women who had wound drains compared with those who did not. There was some evidence from one trial that a subcutaneous drain may increase wound infection compared to a sub-sheath drain (RR 5.42, 95% CI 1.28 to 22.98). No differences in outcomes were found between subcutaneous drainage and subcutaneous suturing in the three trials that made this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence suggests that the routine use of wound drains at caesarean section does not confer any substantial benefit to the women involved. However, neither moderate benefit nor harm are excluded.

Caesarean deliveries by Pfannenstiel versus Joel-Cohen incision: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to compare the Pfannenstiel versus Joel-Cohen incisions during caesarean deliveries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Women undergoing caesarean deliveries (n=153) were randomly assigned to the conventional Pfannenstiel or the Joel-Cohen incision. The outcome measures included postoperative pain, requirement for analgesics, operative time and other postoperative data.

RESULTS

Maternal age, parity, gestational age and indications for caesarean delivery were similar across groups. Total operative time, postoperative recovery duration, time to get out of bed, to walk straight without support, to detect audible intestinal sounds and to pass gases or stools were shorter in the Joel-Cohen group. Postoperative haematocrit decreases and estimated intraoperative blood loss were similar between the two techniques. Moderate and severe pain at 6, 12 and 18 hours postoperatively was less frequent after the Joel-Cohen technique.

CONCLUSION

Joel-Cohen incision in the non-scarred abdomen may provide a faster technique for caesarean section with less postoperative pain and probably early postoperative recovery in our circumstances.

Emergency cesarean delivery: special precautions

An emergent cesarean delivery is performed to immediately intervene to improve maternal or fetal outcome for such indications as fetal distress, prolapsed cord, maternal hemorrhage from previa or trauma, uterine rupture, and complete placental abruption. It is paramount to reduce morbidity and mortality by preparing health care providers for special precautions.

Improvements in Cesarean Section Techniques: Arad's Obstetrics Department Experience on Adapting the Vejnovic Cesarean Section Technique

OBJECTIVES

Cesarean section has become recently the first choice for delivery in many clinics in Romania and worldwide. The purpose of our study is to assess the benefits of introducing the adapted Vejnovic uterine suture technique into daily practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1703 out of the 1776 cesarean section performed in the period January, 2012 - March, 2013 in the Obstetric Department of the Emergency Clinical County Hospital of Arad were retrospectively analyzed based on the cesarean section registries, birth registries and patient's personal medical records. We compared results between the group of patients undergoing adapted Vejnovic cesarean section technique and the group of patients operated in a classic manner.

OUTCOMES

The cesarean section rate in the studied period was 56.48%. Adapted Vejnovic cesarean section technique was performed in 548 cases (30.86% of the cases), furthermore in the last 3 months studied it reached 57.27%. Mean APGAR score was better in the adapted Vejnovic cesarean section group (8.43) compared with the reference group (8.34). No significant differences were seen between the two groups regarding maternal age, gestation, weeks of gestation, newborn weight, anesthesia and indications for cesarean section. Exteriorizing the uterus helped the incidental diagnosis of 35 uterine myoma, 22 adnexal masses and 13 uterine malformations.

CONCLUSION

In a society with a constant growth of cesarean rate, the adapted Vejnovic cesarean section technique is becoming popular amongst clinicians for its advantages, but further studies need to be developed for its standardization.

A randomized comparative study on modified Joel-Cohen incision versus Pfannenstiel incision for cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

Pfanennstiel incision is the most commonly used incision for cesarean section, but may not be the best. This study compared the modified Joel-Cohen incision with the Pfannenstiel incision to evaluate whether techniques to open the abdomen might influence operative time, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a randomized comparative trial, 302 women with gestational age >34 weeks, requiring cesarean section, were randomly assigned to either modified Joel-Cohen incision or Pfannenstiel incision for entry into the peritoneal cavity. The primary outcome measure was total time required for performing operation and secondary outcome measures were baby extraction time, number of haemostatic procedures used in the abdominal wall, postoperative morbidity, postoperative hospital stay and neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

Mean total operative time was significantly less in the modified Joel-Cohen group as compared to the Pfannenstiel group (29.81 vs 32.67 min, p<0.0001, 95%CI=2.253 to 3.467). Time taken to deliver the baby and haemostatic procedures required during operation were also significantly less in the modified Joel-Cohen group as compared to the Pfannenstiel group. Requirement of strong analgesics was higher in the Pfannenstiel group (53.64% vs 21.85%, p<0.0001). There was no statically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound complications but postoperative stay in hospital was significantly less in the modified Joel-Cohen group (p=0.002). Neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The modified Joel-Cohen incision for entry into peritoneal cavity during cesarean section is associated with reduced mean total operative and baby extraction times with less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay, which may be beneficial and cost effective.

Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is a common operation with no agreed upon standard regarding certain operative techniques or materials to use. With regard to skin closure, the skin incision can be re-approximated by a subcuticular suture immediately below the skin layer, by an interrupted suture, or by staples. A great variety of materials and techniques are used for skin closure after caesarean section and there is a need to identify which provide the best outcomes for women.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of skin closure techniques and materials on maternal and operative outcomes after caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized trials comparing different skin closure materials in caesareans were selected. Two review authors independently abstracted the data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 19 trials and included 11, but only eight trials contributed data. Three trials were not randomized controlled trials; two were ongoing; one study was terminated and the results were not available for review; one is awaiting classification; and one did not compare skin closure materials, but rather suture to suture and drain placement.

MAIN RESULTS

The two methods of skin closure for caesarean that have been most often compared are non-absorbable staples and absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with similar incidences of wound infection. Other important secondary outcomes, such as wound complications, were also similar between the groups in women with Pfannenstiel incisions. However, it is important to note, that for both of these outcomes (wound infection and wound complication), staples may have a differential effect depending on the type of skin incision, i.e., Pfannenstiel or vertical. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with an increased risk of skin separation, and therefore, reclosure. However, skin separation was variably defined across trials, and most staples were removed before four days postpartum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Staples are associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and cosmesis compared with sutures, and these two are the most commonly studied methods for skin closure after caesarean section. If staples are removed on day three, there is an increased incidence of skin separation and the need for reclosure compared with absorbable sutures.

Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is a common operation with no agreed upon standard regarding certain operative techniques or materials to use. With regard to skin closure, the skin incision can be re-approximated by a subcuticular suture immediately below the skin layer, by an interrupted suture, or by staples. A great variety of materials and techniques are used for skin closure after caesarean section and there is a need to identify which provide the best outcomes for women.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of skin closure techniques and materials on maternal and operative outcomes after caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (10 January 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized trials comparing different skin closure materials in caesareans were selected. Two review authors independently extracted the data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 18 trials and included 10, but only eight trials contributed data. Three trials were not randomized controlled trials; three were ongoing; and one did not compare skin closure materials, but rather suture to suture and drain placement.

MAIN RESULTS

The two methods of skin closure for caesarean that have been most often compared are non-absorbable staples and absorbable subcutaneous sutures. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with similar incidences of wound infection. Other important secondary outcomes, such as wound complications, were also similar between the groups in women with Pfannenstiel incisions. However, it is important to note, that for both of these outcomes (wound infection and wound complication), staples may have a differential effect depending on the type of skin incision, i.e., Pfannenstiel or vertical. Compared with absorbable subcutaneous sutures, non-absorbable staples are associated with an increased risk of skin separation, and therefore, reclosure. However, skin separation was variably defined across trials, and most staples were removed before four days postpartum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no conclusive evidence about how the skin should be closed after caesarean section. Staples are associated with similar outcomes in terms of wound infection, pain and cosmesis compared with sutures, and these two are the most commonly studied methods for skin closure after caesarean section. If staples are removed on day three, there is an increased incidence of skin separation and the need for reclosure compared with absorbable sutures.

New Technique for Caesarean Section

Caesarean section is one of the most common operations worldwide and more than 30 % of procedures in perinatal centres in Germany are caesarean sections. In the last few years the technique used for caesarean sections has been simplified, resulting in a lower postoperative morbidity. But persistent problems associated with all caesarean section techniques include high intraoperative loss of blood, the risk of injury to the child during uterotomy and postoperative wound dehiscence of the uterine scar. We present here a modification of the most common Misgav-Ladach method. The initial skin incision is done along the natural skin folds and is extended intraoperatively depending on the circumference of the baby's head. After blunt expansion of the uterine incision using an anatomical forceps, the distal uterine wall is pushed behind the baby's head. The baby's head is rotated into the occipito-anterior or posterior position and delivery occurs through the application of gentle pressure on the uterine fundus. Closure of the uterotomy is done using 2 continuous sutures, which are then knotted together resulting in a short double-layer closure. The two ends of the skin suture are left open to allow for natural drainage. Our experience at the University Gynaecological Hospitals in Novi Sad and Magdeburg has shown that this modification is associated with shorter operating times, minimal blood loss and shorter in-hospital stay of patients as well as high rates of patient satisfaction.

Pain management after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial of oxycodone versus intravenous piritramide

PURPOSE

Primary objective was to assess whether oral analgesia with oxycodone offers superior pain relief after cesareans than patient controlled analgesia (PCA). Secondary outcomes were additional pain medication, time to first mobilization, therapeutic side effects, postoperative restrictions, overall satisfaction and costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trial at a University Hospital conduct between July 2009 and November 2009. Of the 1,112 patients, 257 met the inclusion criteria and 239 agreed to participate. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive intravenous piritramide PCA (2 mg piritramide/ml 0.9 % saline) or oral oxycodone (20 mg). Pain was assessed on a visual analog pain scale (VAS) at 2, 12, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 72 h after cesarean.

RESULTS

No differences in VAS scores were observed within the general study population. Pain scores of oxycodone versus PCA were comparable at 24 h. Patients randomized to PCA demonstrated increased demand for rescue medication 48 h after cesarean (p = 0.057). In the PCA group, patients with previous cesarean had increased operative times, a trend towards increased VAS scores after 48 h (p = 0.081) and increased VAS scores in comparison to patients who did not have cesarean before (p = 0.044). For this subgroup, no difference was seen in the oxycodone patients (p = 0.883).

CONCLUSION

General satisfaction with both treatment regimes was high. The results support the potential use of oral pain regimes and emphasis the importance of a multimodal approach to treat post-cesarean pain. Oral oxycodone is a not expensive, convenient and comparable analgesic to PCA devices with opioids after cesarean. Trial registration at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT 01115101.

Cesarean delivery and risk for postoperative adhesions and intestinal obstruction: a nested case-control study of the Swedish Medical Birth Registry

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to estimate the risk for postoperative adhesions and intestinal obstruction after cesarean delivery and to estimate whether the rate remains stable over time.

STUDY DESIGN

Women who had the aforementioned diagnoses in the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry were linked to the Swedish Medical Birth Registry. Women with diagnoses increasing the risk for adhesions were excluded. More than 900,000 women were investigated. Risks were calculated and were adjusted for age, parity, body mass index, and smoking.

RESULTS

Women delivered by cesarean delivery had an increased risk of adhesions: adjusted odds ratio, 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.4) and intestinal obstruction: adjusted odds ratio, 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.7-2.4). The number needed to harm was 360. Multiple caesarean deliveries increased the risk of adhesions. The risk did not increase over time.

CONCLUSION

The absolute risk of postoperative adhesions and intestinal obstruction after cesarean section are low but should be included when counseling women requesting cesarean delivery.

Comparison of transverse and vertical skin incision for emergency cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

To compare incision-to-delivery intervals and related maternal and neonatal outcomes by skin incision in primary and repeat emergent cesarean deliveries.

METHODS

From 1999 to 2000, a prospective cohort study of all cesarean deliveries was conducted at 13 hospitals comprising the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. This secondary analysis was limited to emergent procedures, defined as those performed for cord prolapse, abruption, placenta previa with hemorrhage, nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, or uterine rupture. Incision-to-delivery intervals, incision-to-closure intervals, and maternal outcomes were compared by skin-incision type (transverse compared with vertical) after stratifying for primary compared with repeat singleton cesarean delivery. Neonatal outcomes were compared by skin-incision type.

RESULTS

Of the 37,112 live singleton cesarean deliveries, 3,525 (9.5%) were performed for emergent indications of which 2,498 (70.9%) were performed by transverse and the remaining 1,027 (29.1%) by vertical incision. Vertical skin incision shortened median incision-to-delivery intervals by 1 minute (3 compared with 4 minutes, P<.001) in primary and 2 minutes (3 compared with 5 minutes, P<.001) in repeat cesarean deliveries. Total median operative time was longer after vertical skin incision by 3 minutes in primary (46 compared with 43 minutes, P<.001) and 4 minutes in repeat cesarean deliveries (56 compared with 52 minutes, P<.001). Neonates delivered through a vertical incision were more likely to have an umbilical artery pH of less than 7.0 (10% compared with 7%, P=.02), to be intubated in the delivery room (17% compared with 13%, P=.001), or to be diagnosed with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (3% compared with 1%, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

In emergency cesarean deliveries, neonatal delivery occurred more quickly after a vertical skin incision, but this was not associated with improved neonatal outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Cesarean techniques in cases with one previous cesarean delivery: comparison of modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of the Pfannenstiel-Kerr method (PKM) or modified Misgav-Ladach method (MMLM) in previous cesarean sections (C/Ss).

METHODS

Hundred and fifteen gravidas were included with previous one C/S, using either a PKM or MMLM. Demographic characteristics, operative outcomes, surgical complications, and neonatal outcomes were compared in two groups.

RESULTS

The mean operative time (18.0 ± 3.5 vs. 23.5 ± 5.7 min; p < 0.0001) and mean extraction time (90.1 ± 41.2 vs. 208.1 ± 79.1 s; p < 0.0001) were significantly shorter in the MMLM group than the PKM group. Postoperative recovery (mobilization, normalization of bowel function, need for analgesics, time to oral feeding, and intra-operative blood loss) was similar between the MMLM and PKM groups.

CONCLUSION

The MMLM appears to be a faster alternative to PKM for previous C/Ss, with similar results as in previous studies with primary CSs.

Techniques for cesarean section

The effects of complete methods of cesarean section (CS) were compared. Metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials of intention to perform CS using different techniques was carried out. Joel-Cohen-based CS compared with Pfannenstiel CS was associated with reduced blood loss, operating time, time to oral intake, fever, duration of postoperative pain, analgesic injections, and time from skin incision to birth of the baby. Misgav-Ladach compared with the traditional method was associated with reduced blood loss, operating time, time to mobilization, and length of postoperative stay for the mother. Joel-Cohen-based methods have advantages compared with Pfannenstiel and traditional (lower midline) CS techniques. However, these trials do not provide information on serious and long-term outcomes.

Extraabdominal vs intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

Cesarean section delivery is a commonly performed surgical procedure, and rates of cesarean delivery are increasing. Previous randomized trials that compared extraabdominal and intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean section delivery have yielded conflicting results.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a metaanalysis of published randomized controlled trials that addressed the method of uterine repair at cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was incidence of perioperative complications. The secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for categoric variables with random effects models. Continuous variables were compared by means of weighted mean differences.

RESULTS

No significant differences in either postoperative or intraoperative complications were demonstrated between the extraabdominal (n = 1605) and intraabdominal repair (n = 1578) groups. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were all unaffected by repair technique. This study cannot exclude differences in rare complications, such as serious venous air embolism or maternal death.

CONCLUSION

No differences in complication rates were found between extraabdominal and intraabdominal repair at cesarean section delivery; both techniques are valid surgical options.

New and underutilised technologies to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity: what progress have we made since Bellagio 2003?

In 2003, maternal health experts met in Bellagio, to consider new and underutilised technologies vital to pregnancy-related health services in low-resource settings. Five years later, we examine what progress has been made and what new opportunities may be on the horizon. Based on a review of literature and consultation with experts, we consider technologies addressing the five leading causes of maternal mortality: postpartum haemorrhage, eclampsia, obstructed labour, puerperal sepsis, and unsafe abortion (pregnancy termination and miscarriage). In addition, we consider technologies related to obstetric fistula, which has received more attention in recent years.

Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is a common operation. Techniques vary depending on both the clinical situation and the preferences of the operator.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 1) different types of uterine incision, 2) methods of performing the uterine incision, 3) suture materials and technique of uterine closure (including single versus double layer closure of the uterine incision) on maternal health, infant health, and health care resource use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing various types and closure of uterine incision during caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the stated eligibility criteria and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 studies, of which 15 (3972 women) were included. Ten trials compared single layer uterine closure with double layer uterine closure (2531 women), two trials compared blunt with sharp dissection at the time of the uterine incision (1241 women), and two trials compared auto-suture devices with traditional hysterotomy (300 women). Blunt dissection was associated with a reduction in mean blood loss at the time of the procedure when compared with sharp dissection of the uterine incision (one study, 945 women, mean difference (MD) -43.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -66.12 to -19.88). There was no statistically significant difference related to need for blood transfusion (one study, 945 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01). The use of an auto-suture instrument when compared with traditional methods of hysterotomy was associated with no difference in the amount of blood loss during the procedure (one study, 200 women, MD -87.00, 95% CI -175.09 to 1.09), but a statistically significant increase in the duration of the procedure (one study, 197 women, MD 3.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.62). Single layer closure compared with double layer closure was associated with a statistically significant reduction in mean blood loss (three studies, 527 women, MD -70.11, 95% CI -101.61 to -38.60); duration of the operative procedure (four studies, 645 women, MD -7.43, 95% CI -8.41 to -6.46); and presence of postoperative pain (one study, 158 women, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While caesarean section is a common procedure performed on women worldwide, there is little information available to inform the most appropriate surgical technique to adopt.

The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section is one of the most commonly performed operations on women throughout the world. Rates have increased in recent years - about 20-25% in many developed countries. Rates in other parts of the world vary widely.A variety of surgical techniques for all elements of the caesarean section operation are in use. Many have not yet been rigorously evaluated in randomised controlled trials, and it is not known whether any are associated with better outcomes for women and babies. Because huge numbers of women undergo caesarean section, even small differences in post-operative morbidity rates between techniques could translate into improved health for substantial numbers of women, and significant cost savings.

DESIGN

CORONIS is a multicentre, fractional, factorial randomised controlled trial and will be conducted in centres in Argentina, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Sudan. Women are eligible if they are undergoing their first or second caesarean section through a transverse abdominal incision. Five comparisons will be carried out in one trial, using a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 fractional factorial design. This design has rarely been used, but is appropriate for the evaluation of several procedures which will be used together in clinical practice. The interventions are:* Blunt versus sharp abdominal entry* Exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair* Single versus double layer closure of the uterus* Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum (pelvic and parietal)* Chromic catgut versus Polyglactin-910 for uterine repairThe primary outcome is death or maternal infectious morbidity (one or more of the following: antibiotic use for maternal febrile morbidity during postnatal hospital stay, antibiotic use for endometritis, wound infection or peritonitis) or further operative procedures; or blood transfusion. The sample size required is 15,000 women in total; at least 7,586 women in each comparison.

DISCUSSION

Improvements in health from optimising caesarean section techniques are likely to be more significant in developing countries, because the rates of postoperative morbidity in these countries tend to be higher. More women could therefore benefit from improvements in techniques.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The CORONIS Trial is registered in the Current Controlled Trials registry. ISCRTN31089967.

Wound drainage for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous and sub rectus sheath wound drains are sometimes used in women who have undergone caesarean section. The indications for using drains vary by clinician.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of using a wound drain with not using a wound drain at caesarean section, and of different types of drain, on maternal health and healthcare resource use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This review draws on the search strategy developed for the Cochrane Wounds Group as a whole. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl and CAB Health), and the reference lists of included articles were also searched up to June 2004

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they allocated women to groups at random and they compared any type of wound drain with no wound drainage, or with any other type of drain, in women undergoing caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were evaluated for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results. This was done by two reviewers according to pre-stated eligibility criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials (1993 women) were included in the review. Meta-analysis found no difference in the risk of wound infection, other wound complications, febrile morbidity or endometritis in women who had wound drains compared with those who did not. There was some evidence that caesarean sections may be about five minutes shorter and that blood loss may be slightly lower when drains were not used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence in the seven small trials included to suggest that the routine use of wound drains at caesarean section confers any benefit on the women involved. These trials do not answer the question of whether wound drainage is of benefit when haemostasis is not felt to be adequate. Further large trials are justified using blinded outcome assessment to examine the role of different types of wound drain at caesarean section. Comparing the use of drains in women with different degrees of obesity and in women having first or repeat caesareans and intrapartum or prelabour caesarean sections would be of interest. Women's views and experience of drains have not been studied in these trials.

Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Different techniques have been described to reduce morbidity during caesarean section. After the baby has been born by caesarean section and the placenta has been extracted, temporary removal of the uterus from the abdominal cavity (exteriorisation of the uterus) to facilitate repair of the uterine incision has been postulated as a valuable technique. This is particularly so when exposure of the incision is difficult and when there are problems with haemostasis. Several clinical trials have been done, with varying results, including substantial reduction in the rate of postoperative infection and morbidity with extra-abdominal closure of the uterine incision, and less associated peri-operative haemorrhage. Subsequent studies suggest that the method of placental removal rather than method of closure of the uterine incision influences peri-operative morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of extra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision compared to intra-abdominal repair.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2003) and PubMed (1966 to 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of uterine exteriorisation with intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision in women undergoing caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the trials identified for inclusion. We compared categorical data using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals and continuous data using the weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. We tested for statistical heterogeneity between trials using the I squared test. Where no significant heterogeneity (greater than 50%) existed, we pooled data using a fixed effect model. If significant heterogeneity existed, a random effects model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were included, with 1294 women randomised overall, and 1221 women included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in most of the outcomes identified, except for febrile morbidity and length of hospital stay. With extra-abdominal closure of the uterine incision, febrile morbidity was lower (relative risk 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.97), and the hospital stay was longer (weighted mean difference 0.24 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from this review to make definitive conclusions about which method of uterine closure offers greater advantages, if any. However, these results are based on too few and too small studies to detect differences in rare, but severe, complications.