Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn , Issue 3, 2008, Pages

  Dodd, Jodie M ^a   Anderson, Elizabeth R ^b   Gates, Simon ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOPATHY; ANEMIA; BLEEDING; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILD HEALTH; COCHRANE LIBRARY; ENDOMETRITIS; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; HYSTEROTOMY; INCISION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATERNAL WELFARE; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PREGNANCY; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION; STAPLER; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SUTURE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UTERUS; UTERUS SURGERY; WOUND INFECTION;

EID: 55149105915     PISSN: 1469493X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004732.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Batioglu 1998 {published data only} Batioglu S, Kuscu E, Duran EH, Haberal A. One-layer closure of low segment transverse uterine incision by the Lembert technique. Journal of Gynecologic Surgery 1998;14:11-4.
2. Bjorklund 2000 {published data only} Bjorklund K, Kimaro M, Urassa E, Lindmark G. Introduction of the Misgav Ladach caesarean section at an African tertiary centre: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;107(2):209-16.
3. Dani 1998 {published data only} Dani C, Reali M, Oliveto R, Temporin G, Bertini G, Rubaltelli F. Short-term outcome of newborn infants born by a modified procedure of cesarean section: a prospective randomized study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1998;77:929-31.
4. Darj 1999 {published data only} Darj E, Nordstrom ML. The misgav ladach method for cesarean section compared to the pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1999;78(1):37-41.
5. Ferrari 2001 {published data only} Ferrari A, Frigerio L, Candotti G, Buscaglia M, Petrone M, Taglioretti A, et al.Can Joel-Cohen incision and single layer reconstruction reduce cesarean section morbidity?. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2001;72:135- 43.
6. Hamar 2007 {published data only} * Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, et al.Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;110:808-13.
7. Hamar BR, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, et al.Ultrasound evaluation of uterine incision healing after cesarean delivery - a randomized controlled study of one-versus two-layer closure. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;195(6 Suppl 1):S57.
8. Hauth 1992 {published data only} Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-later closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997;89:16-8.
9. * Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one vs two layers. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;167:1108-11.
10. Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO, Lincoln T. Transverse uterine incision closure: one vs two layers. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991;164:407.
11. Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO, Lincoln T, Piazza J. Transverse uterine incision closure: one vs two layers. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;166:398.
12. Lal 1988 {published data only} Lal K, Tsomo P. Comparative study of single layer and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 1988;27:349-52.
13. Magann 2002 {published data only} * Magann E, Chauhan S, Bufkin L, Field K, Roberts W, Martin JP Jr. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt verus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2002;109:448-52.
14. Magann E, Chauhan S, Bufkin L, Fields K, Roberts W, Martin JJ. Sharp versus blunt expansion of the uterine incision: influence on blood loss [abstract]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;184(1):S18.
15. Moreira 2002 {published data only} Moreira P, Moreau JC, Faye ME, Ka S, Kane Gueye SM, Faye EO, Dieng T, Diadhiou F. Comparison of two cesarean techniques: classic versus misgav ladach cesarean [Comparaison de deux techniques de cesarienne: cesarienne classique versus cesarienne Misgav Ladach]. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 2002;31(6):572-6.
16. Rodriguez 1994 {published data only} Rodriguez A, Porter KB, O'Brien WF. Digital vs instrumental expansion of the uterine incision at the time of a low segment transverse cesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;170:339.
17. * Rodriguez AI, Porter KB, O'Brien WF. Blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision in low-segment transverse cesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;171:1022-5.
18. Villeneuve 1990 {published data only} Villeneuve MG, Khalife S, Marcoux S, Blanchet P. Surgical staples in cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990;163:1641-6.
19. Von Rechenberg 1990 {published data only} Von Rechenberg KN. Use of a stapler for hysterotomy in Cesarean section [Die Anwendung eines Klammernahtinstrumentes fur die Hysterotomie bei der Sectio Caesarea]. Zeitschrift fur Geburtshilfe und Perinatologie 1990;194:85-9.
20. Wallin 1999 {published data only} * Wallin G, Fall O. Modified joel-cohen technique for caesarean delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;106(3):221-6.
21. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified joel-cohen technique for caesarean section. A prospective randomised study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica Supplement 1997;76(167:2):24.
22. Xavier 2005 {published data only} Ayres-de-Campos D, Patricio B. Modifications to the misgav ladach technique for cesarean section. Acta Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000;79:326-7.
23. * Xavier P, Ayres-De-Campos D, Reynolds A, Guimaraes M, Costa-Santos C, Patricio B. The modified misgav-ladach versus the pfannensteil-kerr technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2005;84(9):878-82.
24. Ansaloni 2001 {published data only} Ansaloni L, Brundisini R, Morino G, Kiura A. Prospective, randomized, comparative study of misgav ladach versus traditional cesarean section at Nazareth Hospital, Kenya. World Journal of Surgery 2001;25(9):1164-72.
25. Behrens 1997 {published data only} Behrens D, Zimmerman S, Stoz F, Holzgreve W. Conventional versus cohen-stark: a randomised comparison of the two techniques for cesarean section. 20th Congress of the Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics; 1997 June; Lugano, Switzerland. 1997:14.
26. Dargent 1990 {published data only} Dargent D, Audra P, Noblot G. Utilisation of the Poly CS57 clip for Caesarean section. A randomised trial. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 1990;18:961-2.
27. Falls 1958 {published data only} Falls F. Recent advances in obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Journal of the American Medical Association 1958;166:1409-12.
28. Gaucherand 2001 {published data only} Gaucherand P, Bessai K, Sergeant P, Rudigoz RC. Towards simplified cesarean section? [Vers une simplification de l'operation cesarienne?]. Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 2001;30(4):348-52.
29. Giacalone 2002 {published data only} Giacalone PL, Daures JP, Vignal J, Herisson C, Hedon B, Laffargue F. Pfannenstiel versus maylard incision for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2002;99:745-50.
30. Heidenreich 1995 {published data only} Heidenreich W, Bruggenjurgen K. Modified Sarafoff suture for single layer closure of uterotomy in cesarean section. A prospective study. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 1995;117:40-4.
31. Heimann 2000 {published data only} Heimann J, Hitschold T, Muller K, Berle P. Randomized trial of the modified misgav-ladach and the conventional pfannensteil techniques for cesarean section. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 2000;60:242-50.
32. Hohlagschwandtner {published data only} Hohlagschwandtner M, Chalubinski K, Nather A, Husslein P, Joura EA. Sonographic findings after cesarean section without formation of a bladder flap [Sectio caesarea ohne Blasenpraparation: Eine sonographische Nachuntersuchung.]. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 2002;62(2):163-6.
33. * Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura E. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;98:1089-92.
34. Hoskins 1991 {published data only} Hoskins IA, Ordorica SA, Frieden FJ, Young BK. Performance of Cesarean section using absorbable staples. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 1991;172:108-12.
35. Ohel 1996 {published data only} Ohel G, Younis JS, Lang N, Levit A. Double-layer closure of uterine incision with visceral and parietal peritoneal closure: are they obligatory steps of routine cesarean sections?. Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine 1996;5(6):366-9.
36. Redlich 2001 {published data only} Redlich A, Koppe I. The "gentle caesarean section" - an alternative to the classical way of section. A prospective comparison between the classical technique and the method of misgav ladach ["Die sanfte Sectio" - Eine Alternative zur klassischen Sectiotechnik - Prospektiver Vergleich der klassischen Technik mit der Misgav-Ladach-Methode]. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 2001;123(11):638-43.
37. Van Dongen 1989 {published data only} Van Dongen P, Nijhuis J, Jongsma H. Reduced blood loss during caesarean section due to a controlled stapling technique. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1997;76(167):20.
38. Van Dongen PWJ, Nijhuis JG, Jongsma HW. Reduced blood loss during Caesarean section due to a controlled stapling technique. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1989;32:95-102.
39. Brocklehurst 2007 {published data only} Brocklehurst P. The CAESAR study: a randomised controlled trial of caesarean section surgical techniques. 31st British International Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2007 July 4-6; London, UK. 2007:31.
40. Buhimschi 2006 {published data only} Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Zhao G, Funai EF, Peltecu G, Saade GR, Weiner CP. Structural and biomedical properties of the lower uterine segment above and below the reflection of the urinary bladder at cesarean section (CS). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;195(6 Suppl 1):S89.
41. Decavalas 1997 {published data only} Decavalas G, Papadopoulos V, Tzingounis V. A prospective comparison of surgical procedures in cesarean section. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1997;76(167):13.
42. Ghezzi 2001 {published data only} Ghezzi F, Franchi M, Raio L, Naro Di E, Balestreri D, Miglierina M, et al.Pfannestiel or joel-cohen incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial [abstract]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;184(1):S166.
43. Hagen 1999 {published data only} Hagen A, Schmid O, Runkel S, Weitzel H, Hopp H. A randomized trial of two surgical techniques for cesarean section. European Journal Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1999;86:S81.
44. Hidar 2007 {published data only} Hidar S, Jerbi M, Hafsa A, Slama A, Bibi M, Khairi H. The effect of uterine incision expansion at caesarean delivery on perioperative haemorrhage: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Revue Medicale de Liege 2007;62(4):235-8.
45. Lodh 2002 {published data only} Lodh E, Bhattacharjee P. Single layer closure of caesarean section - a comparative study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 2002;52(2):35-6.
46. Mazhar 2004 {published data only} Mazhar SB, Mahsood S. Single versus double layer uterine closure during cesarean section: a randomised trial. 30th British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2004 July 7-9; Glasgow, UK. 2004:63.
47. Mukhopadhyay 2000 {published data only} Mukhopadhyay B. Single layer - vs - two layer closure of uterus during caesarean section - an institutional experience [abstract]. XVI FIGO World Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Book 3; 2000 Sept 3-8; Washington DC, USA. 2000:43.
48. Pandey 2006 {published data only} Pandey R, Kant A. Single layer closure of uterine incision without closure of visceral and parietal peritonium vs. double layer closure of uterine incision with visceral and parietal peritoneal closure - a comparative study. 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2006 January 6-9; Cochin, Kerala State, India. 2006:102.
49. Sood 2005 {published data only} Sood AK. Singel versus double layer closure of low transverse uterine incision and caesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 2005;55(3):231-6.
50. CAESAR {published data only} National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. The CAESAR Study. www.npeu.ok.ac.uk/trials/caesar.html (accessed 2001).
51. CORONIS {published data only} National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. Prevention of maternal morbidity after caesarean section in developing countries: a factorial RCT of surgical methods. http://www.npeu.ox. ac.uk/coronis/ accessed 2008.
52. The CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group. The CORONIS trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2007;7:24.
53. ACOG 1999 ACOG Practice Bulletin. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 1999;66:197-204.
54. Bujold 2002 Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;186(6):1326-30.
55. Chapman 1997 Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-later closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997;89:16-8.
56. Deeks 2001 Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Eggar M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (eds) editor (s). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
57. Higgins 2002 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:1539-58.
58. Hofmeyr 2008 Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah AN, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [Art. No.: CD004662. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2]
59. Tahilramaney 1984 Tahilramaney MP, Boucher M, Eglinton GS, Beall M, Phelan JP. Previous cesarean section and trial of labor. Factors related to uterine dehiscence. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1984;29(1): 17-21.
60. Enkin 2006 Enkin MW, Wilkinson C. Single versus two layer suturing for closing the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [Art. No.: CD000192. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000192.pub2]
61. Wilkinson 2006 Wilkinson C, Enkin MW. Absorbable staples for uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [Art. No.: CD000005. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000005. pub2]