Wound drainage for caesarean section

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2013, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Gates, Simon ^a   Anderson, Elizabeth R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANEMIA; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; HEMATOMA; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HUMAN; INCISIONAL HERNIA; INFECTION RISK; INFERTILITY; KELOID; LENGTH OF STAY; MATERNAL DEATH; MATERNAL WELFARE; MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARESTHESIA; PLACENTA PREVIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SEROMA; SUTURE TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THROMBOEMBOLISM; UTERUS RUPTURE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WOUND DEHISCENCE; WOUND DRAINAGE; WOUND INFECTION; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

CESAREAN SECTION; DRAINAGE; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84897368212     PISSN: 14651858     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004549.pub3     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Al Inany H, Youssef G, El Maguid AA, Hamid MA, Naguib A. Value of subcutaneous drainage system in obese females undergoing cesarean section using Pfannenstiel incision. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2002;53(2):75-8.
2. Allaire A, Fisch J, McMahon M. A prospective randomized trial of subcutaneous drain versus subcutaneous suture in obese women undergoing cesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178(1 (Pt 2)):S78.
3. Allaire AD, Fisch J, McMahon MJ. Subcutaneous drain vs. suture in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery: A prospective, randomized trial. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2000;45(4):327-31.
4. CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010;117(11):1366-76.
5. Kumar SA. Subcutaneous drain versus subcutaneous stitch closure to prevent wound disruption after cesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 2004;54(3):237-42.
6. Loong R, Rogers M, Chang A. A controlled trial on wound drainage in Caesarean section. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1988;28(4):266-9.
7. Magann E, Chauhan S, Rodts Palenik S, Bufkin L, Martin JN Jr, et al.Subcutaneous stitch closure versus subcutaneous drain to prevent wound disruption after cesarean delivery: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;186(6):1119-23.
8. Maharaj D, Bagratee JS, Moodley J. Drainage at caesarean section - A randomised prospective study. South African Journal of Surgery 2000;38(1):9-12.
9. Imhof N, Hebisch G, Huch A, Huch R, Zimmerman R. Use of drainage vs no drain for caesarean section. Gynäkologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau 1999;39:164.
10. Ochsenbein-Imhof N, Huch A, Huch R, Zimmermann R. No benefit from post-caesarean wound drainage. Swiss Medical Weekly 2001;131(17-18):248-50.
11. Ramsey PS, White AM, Duinn DA, Lu GC, Ramin SM, Davies JK, et al.Subcutaneous tissue re approximation, alone or in combination with drain, in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;105(5 Part 1):967-73.
12. Saunders NJ, Barclay C. Closed suction wound drainage and lower-segment caesarean section. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1988;95(10):1060-2.
13. Bose M, Pannigrahi R, Mohapatra K, Patel O, Sahoo LN. Subcutaneous drain versus subcutaneous stitch closure to reduce postoperative morbidity following cesarean section [abstract]. 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Jan 6-9 2006; Cochin, Kerala, India. 2006.
14. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG editor(s). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
15. Enkin MW. Closed suction wound drainage at caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1995, Issue Disk Issue 2.
16. Higgins J, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539-58.
17. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 2009;172:137-59.
18. Higgins JPT and Altman DG on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group (Editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
19. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah AN, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: ]
20. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J, on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
21. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/filters.html#random (accessed 9 June 2009).
22. Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P, McKenzie-McHarg K, Ayers S. Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2002;102(2):120-6.