Extra-abdominal removal of placenta during cesarean section: a prospective randomized controlled trial of a novel technique

Can the Pfannenstiel skin incision length be adjusted according to the fetal head during elective cesarean delivery?

Objective

The study aims to determine whether the Pfannenstiel skin incision can be adjusted according to the fetal head's occipitofrontal diameter (OFD) during primary cesarean delivery.

Background

Eligible 114 nulliparous women delivered at term by cesarean section in which Pfannenstiel skin incision was performed according to the OFD of the fetal head between June 2017 and September 2021 were included. Excluded cases were non-vertex presentations, all emergency cesarean sections, severe preeclampsia, women in an active phase of the first stage of labor and second stage of labor, placenta previa and low-lying placenta, multiple pregnancies, and uncontrolled gestational diabetes mellitus.

Results

Among 114 eligible nulliparous women, the mean OFD was 116.1 ± 7.2 (99-138) mm, and the measurement of the Pfannenstiel skin incision length, which was performed according to the OFD was found to be 122.8 ± 9.2 (100-155) mm. The difference between OFD and Pfannenstiel incision kept remained within 10 mm in 90 (82.5.2%), 10-20 mm in 17 (15.5%), and more than 20 mm in two women (1.8%). This technique was successful in 109 (95.6%) out of 114 women without extending the skin incision. In five women, skin incision needed to be extended up to 38 mm. In 10 women (8.7%), the rectus abdominis muscle was cut partially to deliver the fetal head. The mean fetal umbilical artery pH was 7.33 ± 0.05. No neonatal hypoxia was encountered in the study.

Conclusion

Pfannenstiel skin incision can be adjusted according to the OFD with minimal margins of error. This technique may provide better cosmetic results by avoiding unnecessarily prolonged incisions with similar newborn outcomes.

Clinical Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier [NCT05632796].

Manual Removal versus Spontaneous Delivery of the Placenta at Cesarean Section: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigated the effects of the manual placental removal on hemorrhage or other hemorrhage-related complications compared with the spontaneous placental removal during cesarean section (CS), while the results remained controversial and were inconsistent. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify the pooled effects of the methods of placental removal on hemorrhage during CS.

Patients and Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Heterogeneity was tested by I² statistics and Q-statistic. The random-effects model or fixed-effects model were used to calculate the pooled effect for the included studies according to heterogeneity. And the term of standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was pooled and estimated the effects across all studies.

Results

A total of nine RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with spontaneous group, manual placental removal increased the amount of hemorrhage (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI [0.12, 0.94]; Z = 2.54, P = 0.011) and increased the risk of endometritis (OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.31, 2.58]; Z = 3.52, P < 0.0001). In contrast, there was no significant difference concerning the operating time (SMD = −0.30, 95% CI [−0.85, 0.24]; Z = 1.09, P = 0.276), the length of hospital stays (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.30]; Z = 1.11, P = 0.265), and blood transfusion requirement (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.91, 2.04]; Z = 1.52, P = 0.129), respectively.

Conclusion

Comparing with spontaneous placental removal, manual placental removal appeared to be less positive effect during CS. Because of the limitations of this meta-analysis, more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm our findings.

The Case for Standardizing Cesarean Delivery Technique: Seeing the Forest for the Trees

In this Commentary, we explain the case for a standardized cesarean delivery surgical technique. There are three strong arguments for a standardized approach to cesarean delivery, the most common major abdominal surgery performed in the world. First, standardization within institutions improves safety, efficiency, and effectiveness in health care delivery. Second, surgical training among obstetrics and gynecology residents would become more consistent across hospitals and regions, and proficiency in performing cesarean delivery measurable. Finally, standardization would strengthen future trials of cesarean delivery technique by minimizing the potential for aspects of the surgery which are not being studied to bias results. Before 2013, more than 155 randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or systematic reviews were published comparing various aspects of cesarean delivery surgical technique. Since 2013, an additional 216 similar studies have strengthened those recommendations and offered evidence to recommend additional cesarean delivery techniques. However, this amount of cesarean delivery technique data creates a forest for the trees problem, making it difficult for a clinician to synthesize this volume of data. In response to this difficulty, we propose a comprehensive, evidence-based and standardized approach to cesarean delivery technique.