Evidence-based cesarean technique

Comparison of intra operative hemorrhage by blunt and sharp expansion of uterine incision at cesarean section

Objectives:

To compare the effect of blunt and sharp incision of uterus at cesarean section on intra-operative haemorrhage.

Methods:

This trial was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Pakistan Ordinance Factory Hospital, Wah Cantt from 14^th January to 13^th July 2012. Total 80 women planned for lower segment cesarean section through Pfannensteil incision were randomized to either blunt uterine incision (Group-A, n=40) or sharp uterine incision (Group-B, n=40). The fall in Haemoglobin and HCT was compared in two groups and analyzed with help of SPSS version 10.

Results:

Both groups were similar in terms of demographic features like age, parity, gestational age and indication for cesarean section. The participants in Group-A reveled significantly less drop of mean Hb concentration as compared to Group-B (1.47±1.08 and 1.95±0.85 respectively, P value 0.031). Similarly, the fall in mean HCT was significantly less in Group-A in comparison to Group-B (3.21±1.3 and 4.21±2.17 respectively, P-value 0.015)

Conclusion:

Blunt expansion of uterine incision during caesarean section is associated with less fall in Haemoglobin and HCT as compared to sharp expansion.

Routine haemoglobin assay after uncomplicated caesarean sections

Introduction

This study designed to detect whether the routine haemoglobin (Hb) assay after uncomplicated caesarean section (CS) is necessary.

Material and methods

One hundred and twenty-two (122) women who delivered by uncomplicated elective CS were included in this observational study. Pre-operative investigations were performed according to the hospital protocol, including complete blood count, haemoglobin, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and liver and kidney function tests. After the uncomplicated elective CS, blood samples taken from participants immediately, 12, 24, 48 hours, and 1-week post-operative (PO) for haemoglobin assay. Student’s t-test was used to compare the pre-operative, and PO haemoglobins to detect whether or not the Hb assay after uncomplicated CSs is necessary.

Results

There was no significant difference between the pre-operative haemoglobin (11.6 ± 6.4 gms%), and the immediate PO haemoglobin (11.1 ± 5.9; p = 0.1 [95% CI: –1.05, 0.5, 2.05]) or 12-hour PO haemoglobin (10.9 ± 7.3; p = 0.9 [95% CI: –1.03, 0.7, 2.43]) or 24-hour PO haemoglobin (10.7 ± 8.2; p = 0.9 [95% CI: –0.95, 0.9, 2.75]). In addition, there was no significant difference between the pre-operative haemoglobin (11.6 ± 6.4 gms%), and 48-hour PO haemoglobin (11.2 ± 6.9; p = 0.7 [95% CI: –1.28, 0.4, 2.08]), or 1-week PO haemoglobin (11.4 ± 7.5; p = 0.9 [95% CI: –1.55, 0.2, 1.95]).

Conclusions

Routine PO haemoglobin assay after uncomplicated elective CSs is not necessary, especially when the pre-operative haemoglobin before the ECS ≥ 11 gms%, CS duration < 45 min, and estimated intra-operative blood loss ≤ 500 mL.

Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects.  OBJECTIVES: To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section, considering their effectiveness in reducing infectious complications for women and adverse effects on both mother and infant.

SEARCH METHODS

For this 2020 update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section.  RCTs published in abstract form were also included. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies, with 33 providing data (8073 women). Thirty-two studies (7690 women) contributing data administered antibiotics systemically, while one study (383 women) used lavage and was analysed separately. We identified three main comparisons that addressed clinically important questions on antibiotics at caesarean section (all systemic administration), but we only found studies for one comparison, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors'.   We found no studies for the following comparisons: 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides' and 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides plus aminoglycosides'. Twenty-seven studies (22 provided data) included comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only). However for this update, we only pooled data relating to different sub-classes of penicillins and cephalosporins where they are known to have similar spectra of action against agents likely to cause infection at caesarean section. Eight trials, providing data on 1540 women, reported on our main comparison, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors'. We found data on four other comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only) using systemic administration: antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (9 studies, 3093 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (4 studies, 854 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors (2 studies, 865 women); and minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum and antistaphylococcal penicillins (1 study, 200 women). For other comparisons of different classes of antibiotics, only a small number of trials provided data for each comparison, and in all but one case data were not pooled. For all comparisons, there was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included few women. Three of the studies that contributed data were undertaken with drug company funding, one was funded by the hospital, and for all other studies the funding source was not reported. Most of the studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, partly due to the inclusion of many older trials where trial reports did not provide sufficient methodological information. We undertook GRADE assessment on the only main comparison reported by the included studies, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors, and the certainty ranged from low to very low, mostly due to concerns about risk of bias, wide confidence intervals (CI), and few events. In terms of the primary outcomes for our main comparison of 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors': only one small study reported sepsis, and there were too few events to identify clear differences between the drugs (risk ratio (RR) 2.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 56.41, 1 study, 75 women, very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between these antibiotics in preventing endometritis (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.60, 7 studies, 1161 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on infant sepsis or infant oral thrush. For our secondary outcomes, we found there may be little or no difference between interventions for maternal fever (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75, 3 studies, 678 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects on maternal: wound infection (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.90, 4 studies, 543 women), urinary tract infection (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.73, 4 studies, 496 women), composite adverse effects (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.09 to 10.50, 2 studies, 468 women), and skin rash (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.1, 3 studies, 591 women) (all very low certainty evidence). Although maternal allergic reactions were reported by two studies, there were no events. There were no infant outcomes reported in the included studies. For the other comparisons, the results for most outcomes had wide CIs, few studies and few women included. None of the included trials reported on longer-term maternal outcomes, or on any infant outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the best currently available evidence, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins' and 'broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors' may have similar efficacy at caesarean section when considering immediate postoperative infection, although we did not have clear evidence for several important outcomes. Most trials administered antibiotics at or after cord clamping, or post-operatively, so results may have limited applicability to current practice which generally favours administration prior to skin incision. We have no data on any infant outcomes, nor on late infections (up to 30 days) in the mother; these are important gaps in the evidence that warrant further research. Antimicrobial resistance is very important but more appropriately investigated by other trial designs.

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.

CORONIS - International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: the follow-up study

Background

The CORONIS Trial was a 2×2×2×2×2 non-regular, fractional, factorial trial of five pairs of alternative caesarean section surgical techniques on a range of short-term outcomes, the primary outcome being a composite of maternal death or infectious morbidity. The consequences of different surgical techniques on longer term outcomes have not been well assessed in previous studies. Such outcomes include those related to subsequent pregnancy: mode of delivery; abnormal placentation (e.g. accreta); postpartum hysterectomy, as well as longer term pelvic problems: pain, urinary problems, infertility. The Coronis Follow-up Study aims to measure and compare the incidence of these outcomes between the randomised groups at around three years after women participated in the CORONIS Trial.

Methods/Design

This study will assess the following null hypotheses: In women who underwent delivery by caesarean section, no differences will be detected with respect to a range of long-term outcomes when comparing the following five pairs of alternative surgical techniques evaluated in the CORONIS Trial:

1. Blunt versus sharp abdominal entry

2. Exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair

3. Single versus double layer closure of the uterus

4. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum (pelvic and parietal)

5. Chromic catgut versus Polyglactin-910 for uterine repair

The outcomes will include (1) women’s health: pelvic pain; dysmenorrhoea; deep dyspareunia; urinary symptoms; laparoscopy; hysterectomy; tubal/ovarian surgery; abdominal hernias; bowel obstruction; infertility; death. (2) Outcomes of subsequent pregnancies: inter-pregnancy interval; pregnancy outcome; gestation at delivery; mode of delivery; pregnancy complications; surgery during or following delivery.

Discussion

The results of this follow-up study will have importance for all pregnant women and for health professionals who provide care for pregnant women. Although the results will have been collected in seven countries with limited health care resources (Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Sudan) any differences in outcomes associated with different surgical techniques are likely to be generalisable throughout the world.

Trial registration

ISRCTN31089967

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.

Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that omission of the bladder flap in primary and repeat cesarean deliveries shortens operating time without increasing intraoperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

We randomized 258 women undergoing primary and repeat cesarean deliveries at 32 weeks of gestation or more to creation (n=131) or omission (n=127) of the bladder flap. Emergency cesarean deliveries, planned vertical uterine incisions, and previous abdominal surgeries besides cesarean deliveries were excluded. The primary outcome measure was total operating time. Secondary outcomes were bladder injury, incision-to-delivery time, incision-to-fascial closure time, estimated blood loss, postoperative microhematuria, postoperative pain, hospital days, endometritis, and urinary tract infection. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The median skin incision to delivery interval was shorter with omission of the bladder flap (9 [range 1-43] compared with 10 [range 2-70] minutes; P=.04), but there was no difference in total operating time (51 [range 18-124] minutes compared with 51 [range 16-178]; P=.10). No bladder injuries occurred in either group and there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin level, postoperative microhematuria, postoperative pain, hospital days, endometritis, or urinary tract infection.

CONCLUSION

Omission of the bladder flap at primary and repeat cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative or postoperative complications. Incision-to-delivery time is shortened but total operating time appears unchanged.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov,www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00918996.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

The Misgav-Ladach method of cesarean section: a step forward in operative technique in obstetrics

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare the intraoperative and short-term outcomes of two cesarean techniques: the modified Misgav-Ladach and the Pfannenstiel-Kerr.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational cohort study of women undergoing a primary cesarean at the Clinic for Obstetric and Gynecology Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina, between January 2003 and December 2011. The two cesarean techniques were compared for intraoperative and short terms outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 4,944 women were included in this study, 4,336 allocated to the modified Misgav-Ladach and 608 to the Pfannenstiel-Kerr techniques. The rate of modified Misgav-Ladach increased from 74 % in 2003 to 99 % in 2011. The modified Misgav-Ladach technique was associated with a shorter operative time (13.3 min ± 7.4 vs. 19.1 min ± 6.8, p < 0.05), as well as significantly less surgical material (3.5 ± 2.5 vs. 7.9 ± 2.1, p < 0.05). The modified Misgav-Ladach technique was also associated with lower analgesic requirements, lower rates of febrile morbidity and wound infection compared to the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of endometritis, wound dehiscence, bowel restitution, postoperative antibiotic use, and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The modified Misgav-Ladach technique is associated with a shorter operative time than Pfannenstiel-Kerr and might lead to better postoperative outcomes.

Skin closure with subcuticular absorbable staples after cesarean section is associated with decreased analgesic use

PURPOSE

To determine if skin closure with subcuticular absorbable staples at the time of cesarean section is associated with decreased in-hospital analgesic use compared to skin closure with surgical steel staples.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2008 comparing in-hospital analgesic use after cesarean section between patients ,who underwent skin closure with surgical steel staples and subcuticular absorbable polyglycolic acid staples.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine subjects were included in the absorbable staple cohort and 95 were included in the steel staple group. There was a 1.5-fold decrease in ketorolac use (p < 0.0001) and a trend toward decreased ibuprofen use in the absorbable staple cohort (p = 0.06). There was no difference in hydrocodone/acetaminophen use between groups (p = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the use of subcuticular absorbable staples for skin closure at the time of cesarean section may lead to less in-hospital analgesic use, and thereby positively impact a patient's post-operative course. In addition, while reduced analgesic use may represent a small cost savings for each individual patient, there is the potential for significant savings when one considers the large number of cesarean sections performed in the US annually. Prospective studies will be required to assess the full impact of the use of this new skin closure technology.

[Anesthesiological management of Caesarean sections : nationwide survey in Germany]

BACKGROUND

The rate of Caesarean sections in Germany continues to rise. The change in anesthetic technique of choice from general to spinal anesthesia began later than in other countries and at the last survey in 2002 was not widely established. The literature on the anesthetic management of Caesarean sections contains many controversies, for example fluid preload before performing spinal anesthesia and the vasopressor of choice. Other issues have received relatively little attention, such as the level of experience of anesthesiologists working autonomously on the labour ward or the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis. The aim of the current survey was to provide an updated overview of anesthetic management of Caesarean sections in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent out to 709 departments of anesthesiology serving obstetric units in Germany. The questionnaire concerned various aspects of anesthetic management of Caesarean sections.

RESULTS

A total of 360 questionnaires (50.8%) were returned of which 346 were complete and could be analyzed, accounting for 330,000 births and 90,000 Caesarean sections per year. The predominant anesthetic method used for Caesarean sections was spinal anesthesia (90.8%) using hyperbaric bupivacaine and in approximately one third of the hospitals surveyed without administering intrathecal opioids. Approximately 12% of the departments surveyed used traumatic Quincke needles. In 86.2% the vasopressor of choice was caffedrine/theodrenaline. Nitrous oxide was used in only 19.2% of departments surveyed when general anesthesia is performed. An antibiotic drug was administered in only 11% of hospitals before cord clamping. In 43.1% no neonatologist was available to treat unexpected critically ill newborns. In 32.1% of departments surveyed residents with less than 2 years experience worked autonomously on the labour ward.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently the predominant anesthetic technique of choice in Germany is spinal anaesthesia and at a much higher rate than in 2002. In addition 12% of departments use traumatic Quincke needles which are associated with a higher incidence of postpuncture headache. Nitrous oxide is no longer frequently used in Germany. Finally, the administration of an antibiotic before cord clamping has been shown to lead to lower rates of endometritis and postoperative wound infection without detrimental effects on the newborn. This is practiced in only a small minority of departments across Germany.

Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials

Recently published randomized trials examining skin closure technique on postcesarean wound complications have produced conflicting results. We performed a metaanalysis of trials comparing staples and subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean section (CS). Pooled outcome measures were calculated using random effects models. Primary outcomes were rates of wound dehiscence (separation) and a composite wound complication rate. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, operating time, and postoperative pain. A total of 877 women from 5 trials were included. Both wound separation (pooled odds ratio, 4.01; P < .0001) and composite wound complication (pooled odds ratio, 2.11; P = .003) rates were higher with staples. The use of staples reduced operating time (weighted mean difference, -5.05 minutes; P = .021). Data on postoperative pain and patient satisfaction were insufficient for metaanalysis. Our findings suggest a possible benefit with subcuticular sutures compared to skin staples for skin closure at CS. However, the optimal skin closure technique at CS demands further study.