Revival of the extraperitoneal cesarean section

Fetus delivery time in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a randomized trial

Objective: We compared the extraperitoneal cesarean section to transperitoneal cesarean on fetal delivery time.Material and methods: This randomized study included 210 pregnant women undergoing cesarean section for elective reasons, repeat cesarean (< four), or dystocia. Patients who required an urgent cesarean section, who were at high risk for obstetric or maternal bleeding, who had a uterine or adnexal mass, or who requested tubal ligation were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of the study was the skin incision-to-delivery time. The sample size was set to detect of 1-minute difference in fetal delivery time between groups (two-tailed hypothesis, α = 0.05, β = 0.10). Secondary outcome measures were total operation time, intraoperative nausea, gag reflex, vomiting, pain and anxiety for those receiving regional anesthesia, postoperative pain, change in hemoglobin, postoperative analgesic requirements, nausea, vomiting and shoulder pain, urogenital distress, time until gas passage, and neonatal outcome.Results: No significant difference occurred between the two groups for skin incision-to- delivery time (extraperitoneal cesarean 3.9 minutes [2.1-7.3] versus transperitoneal cesarean 4.2 minutes [1.9-8.2], p = .065). Significant differences regarding intraoperative pain, total operation time, postoperative pain at the surgical site and shoulder pain, analgesic requirements, time until gas passage, and oral tolerability favored the extraperitoneal group. No significant differences between groups occurred regarding other seconder outcome parameters.Conclusions: There is no clinically significant difference between extraperitoneal cesarean section and transperitoneal cesarean on fetal delivery time. Extraperitoneal cesarean reduces postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and improves oral tolerability.

Chorioamnionitis and endometritis

Chorioamnionitis complicates 1% to 2% of all pregnancies and may affect 10% of women with certain risk factors. Intraamnionic infection may result in devastating morbidity for both the fetus and the mother. Also, chorioamnionitis is associated with higher cesarean section rates. As demonstrated earlier, endometritis is a common complication of cesarean delivery alone. Nevertheless, antibiotic prophylaxis has been shown to reduce postpartum morbidity. In the face of chorioamnionitis and a cesarean delivery, the risk of developing endometritis increases exponentially. However, if appropriate antibiotic therapy is instituted at the time of diagnosis, fetal and maternal outcomes improve dramatically. Similar to chorioamnionitis, endometritis is usually polymicrobial in nature. The preponderance of the organisms isolated are anaerobic. Established risk factors include operative delivery, prolonged ruptured fetal membranes, and prolonged labor. The diagnosis is based primarily on clinical examination with fever and the exclusion of other sources of extrapelvic infection. Once the diagnosis is established, appropriate empiric antibiotics are instituted. Antibiotic therapy should be continued until the patient is afebrile and asymptomatic for 24 to 36 hours. Over the past 20 years, the use of single-agent therapy in these serious infections has been shown to be safe as well as effective. Once successful therapy is completed, the patient is discharged home with no oral antibiotics.

Progress in pathogenesis and management of clinical intraamniotic infection

In the past decade, gratifying progress has been achieved in our understanding of clinical intraamniotic infection. With a usual incidence of 1% to 4%, clinical intraamniotic infection mainly develops as an ascending process after prolonged rupture of the membranes and labor, but other cases may be hematogenous in origin whereas still others complicate intrauterine procedures. The most common organisms isolated in amniotic fluid of cases of intraamniotic infections are anaerobes, genital mycoplasmas, group B streptococci, and Escherichia coli. The latter two are found most commonly in maternal or neonatal bacteremia complicating intraamniotic infection. Although the diagnosis remains largely a clinical one, laboratory tests have been suggested to confirm the diagnosis in women with symptoms. These include amniotic fluid Gram stain, gas-liquid chromatography, and leukocyte esterase measurement. Maternal treatment consists of antibiotic therapy and delivery. Studies to date have used a penicillin plus an aminoglycoside, with some authors advocating the addition of clindamycin after cesarean delivery. Other broad-spectrum regimens may be equally effective. Complications of clinical intraamniotic infections include an increase in cesarean section rate and in maternal and neonatal bacteremia. Poor neonatal outcomes in intraamniotic infection are more likely in the following cases: (1) when E. coli or group B streptococci are present in the amniotic fluid; (2) when the infant has a low birth weight; (3) when maternal antibiotic therapy is delayed until after delivery.

Current use of the extraperitoneal cesarean section: a decade of experience

Avoidance of the peritoneal cavity is surgically sound and is a primary defense against infections that complicate cesarean sections. A decade of data confirms previous findings that the extraperitoneal cesarean section is an efficacious surgical procedure. Data from 346 cases during this 10-year period support the recommendation that the procedure is a viable alternative to the transperitoneal cesarean section. My experience suggests that the extraperitoneal approach is being rejected not because it lacks merit but because of other factors.

Extraperitoneal cesarean section: a surgical form of infection prophylaxis?

The suggestion that extraperitoneal cesarean section might be a useful method of preventing postoperative infectious complications prompted a prospective study of 91 primary extraperitoneal cesarean sections on afebrile laboring patients with ruptured membranes longer than 4 hours. Fifty of 91 patients having extraperitoneal cesarean sections (group A) were compared with 36 patients having low cervical transperitoneal primary cesarean sections (control group) meeting the same entry criteria in a prospective randomized fashion. The other 41 patients (group B = 25 of 41, group C = 16 of 41) were selected from qualifying high-risk patients depending on the availability of an experienced operator with group C receiving perioperative prophylactic antibiotics. The only significant difference in outcome was: four of 16 (25%) patients in group C (extraperitoneal cesarean section plus prophylactic antibiotics) developed postoperative endomyometritis versus 20 of 36 (56%), 28 of 50 (56%), and 12 of 25 (48%) patients in the transperitoneal primary cesarean section control group and extraperitoneal cesarean section group A and B, respectively (p less than 0.05). There was a trend toward enhanced postoperative recovery in all extraperitoneal cesarean section groups compared with the transperitoneal primary cesarean section control group. Thus, the technique of extraperitoneal cesarean section apparently offers no significant advantage in the prevention of postcesarean endomyometritis, but the use of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics apparently has significant impact.