Reducing Discomfort After Cesarean Birth Using Abdominal Binders

The effect of Kinesio Taping on acute pain, breastfeeding behavior and comfort level in women with cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Kinesio taping is used to provide rehabilitation after surgical operations.

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of kinesio taping (KT) on acute pain, breastfeeding behavior, and comfort level in women with cesarean section.

Subjects and Methods

This was a randomized, single-blinded study. Women (n = 48) were randomly assigned to KT (n = 24) and control (n = 24) groups. KT was applied to both breasts and rectus abdominis muscles of those in the intervention group at the 8-hour postpartum. VAS (Visual Analogue Scale), LATCH (Breastfeeding Charting System and Documentation Tool), PBSES (Postpartum Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale), and PCS (Postpartum Comfort Scale) were performed on the women in both the intervention and control groups on the 0th, 1st and 2nd postoperative days. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the independent samples t-test, the Chi-square test, and the Friedman test.

Results

Compared to the control group, the pain level was significantly reduced in the KT group (χ2 = 67,225; P = 0.001), breastfeeding self-efficacy increased (F = 221.940; P = 0.001) and the postpartum comfort level (χ2 = 36.432; P = 0.001) improved.

Conclusion

In the study, it has been shown that KT has important effects on pain management, breastfeeding success, and increasing comfort level in women with cesarean section compared to the control group and the initial period, and can be used safely.

The efficacy of abdominal binders in reducing postoperative pain and distress after cesarean delivery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of abdominal binders in reducing postoperative pain, patient distress and surgical postoperative sequelae after cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

A comprehensive search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central) was performed up to February 2021. Selection criteria included randomized clinical trials investigating the application or not of abdominal binder after CD. The primary outcome was postoperative pain, measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score. Secondary outcomes were divided into short- and long-term postoperative outcomes, including patient distress, need for additional pain medications, time to mobilization, return to normal daily activities, surgical site infection, fascial dehiscence or incisional hernia, and rectus abdominis diastasis. The summary measures were reported as mean difference with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. An I² (Higgins I²) value of greater than 0% was used to identify heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 601 women were included for meta-analysis: 310 (51.6 %) were randomized to the abdominal binder and 291 (48.4 %) to no abdominal binder group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for VAS score either at 24 h (MD -0.97, 95 % CI -2.23 to 0.30; p = 0.13) and at 48 h (MD -0.30, 95 % CI -0.71 to 0.11; p = 0.15). Conversely, there was a significant reduction in postoperative distress (SDS) both at 24 h (MD -2.23, 95 % CI -3.77 to -0.70; p = 0.004) and 48 h (MD -2.37, 95 % CI -3.86 to -0.87; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis shows that the use of abdominal binders after CD significantly reduces patient distress.

Effects of abdominal binders on postoperative pain and functional recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of abdominal binders (ABs) on postoperative pain and functional recovery in patients receiving abdominal surgery.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PEDro databases were searched for clinical trials published up to November 30, 2019. Randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of wearing an AB to not wearing an AB in participants after abdominal surgery were included. The primary outcomes were pain, pulmonary function, and physical function, as assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) score, a spirometry device, and the 6-min walk test (6MWT), respectively. The registration number of this review in PROSPERO is CRD42020165303.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials involving 1317 participants were included. Pooled estimates for the VAS score and the 6MWT showed significant differences between the AB group and the control group, especially on the fourth day following surgery (Mean Difference (MD) = -2.82, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -3.41 to -2.22, P < 0.00001; MD = 50.97 m, 95% CI 39.99 to 61.95 m, P < 0.00001). However, no significant differences were found in pulmonary function (forced vital capacity (FVC): MD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.32, P = 0.94; forced expiratory volume during 1 s (FEV1): MD = -0.05; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.14; p = 0.63; FEV1/FVC: MD = 3.14, 95% CI -2.78 to 9.06, P = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

ABs probably improve postoperative pain and physical function, especially on the fourth day or more following abdominal surgery, but they have no effects on pulmonary function.

The effectiveness of the abdominal binder in relieving pain after cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Abdominal binder is a non-pharmacological method of relieving pain after surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the abdominal binder in relieving pain and distress scores after cesarean delivery (CD).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following terms were searched: cesarean section, cesarean, caesarean, abdominal deliveries, C-section, abdominal delivery, abdominal binding, binder, and abdominal binder.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with patients undergoing CD receiving an abdominal binder compared with non-users of the abdominal binder.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five electronic databases were searched until November 2019. Records were screened for eligibility. Data were extracted independently and analyzed. The main outcomes were pain and distress scores.

RESULTS

The final analysis included six RCTs. Overall effect estimate favored the abdominal binder group over the control group in the following outcomes: VAS pain scores after 24 h (mean difference [MD] -1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.14 to -0.39; P = 0.01), VAS scores after 48 h (MD -1.21; 95% CI -1.51 to -0.90; P < 0.001), distress score after 24 h (MD -1.87; 95% CI -3.01 to -0.73; P = 0.001), and distress score after 48 h (MD -1.87; 95% CI -3.07 to -0.67; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The abdominal binder could be an effective, simple, non-pharmacological option of relieving pain and distress after CD.

The Clinical Effects of Abdominal Binder on Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Objective. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the effects of abdominal binder in abdominal surgeries. Methods. Through literature retrieval in globally recognized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central), trials investigating the application of abdominal binder in abdominal surgeries were systematically reviewed. The main outcomes, namely, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and symptom distress scale (SDS) score, were pooled to make an overall estimation. I² index was calculated to identify heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis was performed to validate the stability of main results and explore the source of heterogeneity. A funnel plot and Egger's test were applied to assess publication bias. Results. Ten randomized controlled trials consisting of 968 subjects were ultimately included for the pooled estimation. Abdominal binder significantly increased the distance of 6MWT with standard mean difference (SMD) of .555 (P < .001) and decreased the scores of VAS and SDS with SMD of -.979 (P < .001) and -.716 (P < .001), respectively. Despite of the significant heterogeneity indicated by I² index statistic, the results of sensitivity analysis revealed the reliability of the main conclusions. While we identified no obvious publication bias regarding 6MWT (Egger's test P = .321), it seemed that significant publication biases existed with respect to the estimation of VAS (P < .001) and SDS (P = .006). Conclusion. The current meta-analysis verified that abdominal binder efficiently promoted recovery after abdominal surgeries in terms of facilitating mobilization, alleviating pain, and reducing postoperative distress. More rigorously designed clinical trials with large sample size are expected to further elaborate its clinical value.