Maternal and fetal effect of misgav ladach cesarean section in nigerian women: a randomized control study

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.

Comparison between modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr techniques for Cesarean section: review of literature

In the last decades cesarean section rates increased in many countries becoming the most performed intraperitoneal surgical procedure. Despite its worldwide spread, a general consensus on the most appropriate technique to use has not yet been reached. The operative technique performed is made chiefly on the basis of the individual experience and preference of operators, the characteristics of patients, timing and urgency of intervention. We compared the two most known and used techniques, modified Misgav-Ladach and traditional Pfannenstiel-Kerr, and analyzed their impact on primary, short- and long-term outcomes and outcome related to health service use.