Comparative evaluation of the Joel-Cohen cesarean section versus the transrectal incision;Étude prospective comparative entre les techniques de césarienne de Joël-Cohen et de Mouchel

Journal de Gynecologie Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 447-450

  Le Du R ^a   Bernardini, M ^c   Agostini, A ^b   Mazouni, C ^b   Shojai, R ^a   Blanc, B ^b   Gamerre, M ^a   Bretelle, F ^a  

^a HÔPITAL NORD   (France)

^b HÔPITAL DE LA CONCEPTION   (France)

^c AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Joel Cohen method; Mouchel incision; Transrectal incision

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORBIDITY; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METHODOLOGY; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PERITONEUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TIME;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MORBIDITY; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PERITONEUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34548287605     PISSN: 03682315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Mouchel J. Suprapubic transrectal incision for carrying out obstetrical and gynecological surgery: analysis of 1545 published cases. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. (Paris) 7 (1986) 959-964
2. Mouchel J. Transverse trans-rectus abdominis incision in gynaecological and obstetrical surgery. Six hundred (and) seventy-three cases. Nouv. Presse Med. 10 6 (1981) 413-415
3. nd ed (1972), William Heinemann Medical Books Ltd, London 8-11
4. Stark M. In: Popkin D.R., and Peddle L.J. (Eds). Technique of cesarean section: the Misgav Ladach method. Women's Health Today (1994), The Parthenon Publishing Group, Montreal 81-85 (10)
5. Darj E., and Nordsstrom M.L. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 78 (1999) 37-41
6. Varga P., and Bodis J. Comparative evaluation of the Misgav Ladach cesarean section with two traditional techniques. The first four years'experience. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 80 (2001) 90-91
7. Stark M., and Finkel A. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesarean section. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 53 (1994) 121-122
8. Holmgren G., Sjoholm L., and Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 78 (1999) 615-621
9. Pietrantoni M., Parsons M.T., O'Brien W.F., Collins E., Knuppel R.A., and Spellacy W.N. Peritoneal closure or non-closure at cesarean. Obstet. Gynecol. 77 (1991) 293-296
10. Irion O., Luzuy F., and Beguin F. Non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at cesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 103 (1996) 690-694
11. Golfier F. Operative technique for cesarean section. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. (Paris) 29 2 Suppl. (2000) 86-95
12. Giacalone P.L., Daures J.P., Vignal J., Herisson C., Hedon B., and Laffargue F. Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: a controlled trail. Obstet. Gynecol. 99 (2002) 745-750
13. Song S.H., Oh M.J., Kim T., Hur J.Y., Saw H.S., and Park Y.K. Finger-assisted stretching technique for cesarean section. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 92 3 (2006) 212-216
14. Franchi M., Ghezzi F., Raio L., Di Naro E., Miglierina M., Agosti M., et al. Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does it make a difference?. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 81 11 (2002) 1040-1046
15. Tully L., Gates S., Brocklehurst P., McKenzie-McHarg K., and Ayers S. Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations; a national survey of practice in the UK. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 102 (2002) 120-126
16. Gates S., McKenzie-McHarg K., and Kurley P. Effects of surgical techniques of caesarean section on maternal health. Fetal Matern. Med. Rev. 12 (2001) 105-137