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

A novel extraperitoneal cesarean section of supravesical approach: Operative techniques

AIM

We have established a novel extraperitoneal cesarean section technique by supravesical approach. An advantage of this technique over the conventional paravesical approach is that the lower uterine segment is broadly exposed and that all operative procedures can be performed under direct vision. We present the details of this novel technique.

METHODS

The bladder and the peritoneum are exposed by removing the transversalis and extraperitoneal fasciae. Subsequently, a triangular area between the median umbilical ligament, the peritoneum, and the bladder is exposed. The median umbilical ligament is dissected at this site. Bladder dissection from the peritoneum is also initiated from this area and proceeds toward the lower uterine segment.

RESULTS

Operative times for pelvic fascia dissection and bladder removal from the peritoneal surface are currently around 15-25 min. During the process of development of this technique, there have been no bladder injuries in 501 patients that caused urine leakage.

DISCUSSION

The supravesical approach has been considered difficult due to the strong adhesion between the perivesical fascia and the peritoneum at the bladder fundus. In this paper, we show how to safely remove the bladder fundus from the peritoneum. The bladder can then be easily lowered down toward the lower uterine segment. Although this technique allows the lower uterine segment to be broadly exposed and all operative procedures can be performed under direct vision, a disadvantage is the comparatively long time currently required to perform it.

CONCLUSIONS

This technique could be a valuable option for extraperitoneal cesarean section, but disadvantages must also be considered.

[The cesarean procedure: Guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]

OBJECTIVE

To identify procedures to reduce maternal morbidity during cesarean.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The quality of evidence of the literature was assessed following the GRADE® method with questions formulated in the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and outcomes defined a priori and classified according to their importance. An extensive bibliographic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases. The quality of the evidence was assessed (high, moderate, low, very low) and a (i) strong or (ii) weak recommendations or (iii) no recommendation were formulated. The recommendations were reviewed in two rounds with external reviewers (Delphi survey) to select the consensus recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the 27 questions, there was agreement between the working group and the external reviewers on 26. The level of evidence of the literature was insufficient to provide a recommendation on 15 questions. Preventing hypothermia is recommended to increase maternal satisfaction and comfort (weak recommendation) and to reduce neonatal hypothermia (strong recommendation). The quality of the evidence of the literature did not allow to recommend the skin disinfectant to be used nor the relevance of a preoperative vaginal disinfection nor the choice between the use or nonuse of an indwelling bladder catheterization (if micturition takes place 1 hour before the cesarean section). The Misgav-Ladach technique or its analogues should be considered rather than the Pfannenstiel technique to reduce maternal morbidity (weak recommendation) bladder flap before uterine incision should not be performed routinely (weak recommendation), but a blunt (weak recommendation) and cephalad-caudad extension of uterine incision (weak recommendation) should be considered to reduce maternal morbidity. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to reduce maternal infectious morbidity (strong recommendation) without recommendation on its type or the timing of administration (before incision or after cord clamping). The administration of carbetocin after cord clamping does not significantly decrease the incidence of blood loss>1000 ml, anemia, or blood transfusion compared with the administration of oxytocin. Thus, it is not recommended to use carbetocin rather than oxytocin in cesarean. It is recommended that systematic manual removal of the placenta not to be performed (weak recommendation). An antiemetic should be administered after cord clamping in women having a planned cesarean under locoregional anaesthesia to reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting (strong recommendation) with no recommendation regarding choice of use one or two antiemetics. The level of evidence of the literature was insufficient to provide any recommendation concerning single or double-layer closure of the uterine incision, or the uterine exteriorization. Closing the peritoneum (visceral or parietal) should not be considered (weak recommendation). The quality of the evidence of the literature was not sufficient to provide recommendation on systematic subcutaneous closure, including in obese or overweight patients, or the use of subcuticular suture in obese or overweight patients. The use of subcuticular suture in comparison with skin closure by staples was not considered as a recommendation due to the absence of a consensus in the external review rounds.

CONCLUSION

In case of cesarean, preventing hypothermia, administering antiemetic and antibiotic prophylaxis after cord clamping are the only strong recommendations. The Misgav-Ladach technique, the way of performing uterine incision (no systematic bladder flap, blunt cephalad-caudad extension), not performing routine manual removal of the placenta nor closure of the peritoneum are weak recommendations and may reduce maternal morbidity.

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.

Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a prospective randomized comparison of surgical morbidity

OBJECTIVE

We sought to test the hypothesis that an extraperitoneal cesarean section (ECS) technique reduces postoperative pain without increasing intraoperative and postoperative complications.

STUDY DESIGN

In a single-center, single-blinded prospective trial we randomized 54 patients with an indication for primary or first repeat cesarean section at term pregnancy to an ECS (n = 27) or transperitoneal cesarean section (TCS) (n = 27) procedure. Patients with suspected abnormal placentation, a history of >1 cesarean section, or major abdominal surgery were excluded. The primary endpoint of the study was maximum abdominal pain measured by numeric rating scale ranging from 0-10.

RESULTS

Patients after ECS had significantly less maximum surgical site pain than patients after TCS. Median peak pain scores on postoperative day 1 were 4.00 (interquartile range, 3.00-5.00) for ECS and 5.00 (interquartile range, 4.00-7.00) for TCS, respectively (P = .031). Analgesic requirements, intraoperative nausea, and postoperative shoulder pain were significantly less after ECS. Overall operative time was significantly shorter in ECS, with no difference in delivery time. No bladder injury occurred in either group. There were no differences in estimated blood loss and neonatal outcome. Urogenital distress, urinary tract infection, and bowel dysfunction did not differ at discharge from hospital and 6 weeks after.

CONCLUSION

An extraperitoneal approach to cesarean section appears to reduce postoperative pain, usage of analgesics, and intraoperative nausea without an increase in significant complications.

Modified extraperitoneal Caesarean section: clinical experience

Summary

The objective of the study was to study postoperative progress of modified extraperitoneal Caesarean section (MECS) technique (group A) and its comparison with standard transperitoneal Caesarean section (TCS) (group B). It is a prospective observational study with sample sizes of 93 and 105 for groups A and B, respectively, in the settings of Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India, which see over 10,000 deliveries per annum. Five parameters were studied. Postoperative febrile morbidity was significantly lower in group A than in group B (6.5% versus 21%; P = 0.004). Gastrointestinal function recovery occurred earlier in group A than B (6 h versus 18.5 h; P < 0.01). Although the difference between skin incision to baby delivery time was significant (6.0 min versus 3.1 min; P < 0.01), there was no significant difference in Apgar score at 1 min ( P = 0.3). There was no difference in intraoperative complications in two groups. MECS is associated with less febrile morbidity and early postoperative recovery than TCS.