Risk factors for wound disruption following cesarean delivery

Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1237-1240

  Subramaniam, Akila ^a,b   Jauk, Victoria C ^a   Figueroa, Dana ^a   Biggio, Joseph R ^a   Owen, John ^a   Tita, Alan T N ^a  

^a Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

Cesarean; Risk factors; Wound disruption

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; BODY MASS; CESAREAN SECTION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORBIDITY; OBESITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SAMPLE SIZE; SURGICAL STAPLING; SUTURING METHOD; WOUND CLOSURE; WOUND DEHISCENCE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; COMPLICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; PREGNANCY; PUERPERAL DISORDERS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REHABILITATION; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ABDOMINAL WOUND CLOSURE TECHNIQUES; ADULT; BODY MASS INDEX; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBESITY; PREGNANCY; PUERPERAL DISORDERS; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84903973493     PISSN: 14767058     EISSN: 14764954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.850487     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2012;61:1-90.
2. Reilly J, Twaddle S, McIntosh J, Kean L. An economic analysis of surgical wound infection. J Hosp Infect 2001;49:245-9.
3. Olsen MA, Butler AM, Willers DM, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection after low transverse cesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:477-84.
4. Opoien HK, Valbo A, Grince-Andersen A, Walberg M. Post-cesarean surgical site infections according to CDC standards: rates and risk factors. A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:1097-102.
5. Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;90:10-15.
6. Takoudes TC, Weitzen S, Slocum J, Malee M. Risk of cesarean wound complications in diabetic gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:958-63.
7. Leth RA, Uldbjerg N, Norgaard M, et al. Obesity, diabetes, and the risk of infections diagnosed in hospital and post-discharge infections after cesarean section: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:501-9.
8. Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, et al. Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121: 33-8.
9. Tran TS, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater A. Risk factors for postcesarean surgical site infection. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95: 367-71.
10. Gong SP, Guo HX, Zhou HZ, et al. Morbidity and risk factors for surgical site infection following cesarean section in Guangdong Province, China. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38:509-15.
11. Tuuli MG, Rampersad RM, Carbone JF, et al. Staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117: 682-90. Review. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1440.
12. Basha SL, Rochon ML, Quiñones JN, et al. Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:285.e1-8.
13. Clay FS, Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Staples vs. subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:378-83.