Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: A systematic review and metaanalysis

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 211, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 453-460

  Roberge, Stéphanie ^a   Demers, Suzanne ^a   Berghella, Vincenzo ^c   Chaillet, Nils ^b   Moore, Lynne ^a   Bujold, Emmanuel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^c THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cesarean; ultrasound evaluation; uterine closure; uterine scar defect

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CESAREAN SECTION; DOUBLE LAYER UTERUS CLOSURE; ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOMETRITIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MATERNAL INFECTIOUS MORBIDITY; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; META ANALYSIS; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SCAR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SINGLE LAYER UTERUS CLOSURE; SURGICAL RISK; SUTURE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UTERINE DEHISCENCE; UTERINE SCAR DEFECT; UTERUS DISEASE; UTERUS RUPTURE; WOUND DEHISCENCE; WOUND INFECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; SUTURING METHOD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS; WOUND CLOSURE;

CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; ENDOMETRITIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; OPERATIVE TIME; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; SURGICAL WOUND DEHISCENCE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS; WOUND CLOSURE TECHNIQUES;

EID: 84908328303     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: 10976868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.014     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. A.P. Betran, M. Merialdi, and J.A. Lauer Rates of cesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 21 2007 98 113
2. S. Liu, R.M. Liston, K.S. Joseph, M. Heaman, R. Sauve, and M.S. Kramer Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term CMAJ 176 2007 455 460
3. E. Jauniaux, and D. Jurkovic Placenta accreta: pathogenesis of a 20th century iatrogenic uterine disease Placenta 33 2012 244 251
4. R.M. Silver Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term maternal outcomes Semin Perinatol 34 2010 258 266
5. C. Fabres, G. Aviles, and C. De La Jara The cesarean delivery scar pouch: clinical implications and diagnostic correlation between transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy J Ultrasound Med 22 2003 695 700 quiz 701
6. Y.J. Blumenfeld, A.B. Caughey, Y.Y. El-Sayed, K. Daniels, and D.J. Lyell Single- versus double-layer hysterotomy closure at primary cesarean delivery and bladder adhesions BJOG 117 2010 690 694
7. S.K. Rodgers, C.L. Kirby, R.J. Smith, and M.M. Horrow Imaging after cesarean delivery: acute and chronic complications Radiographics 32 2012 1693 1712
8. A.M. Tower, and G.N. Frishman Cesarean scar defects: an underrecognized cause of abnormal uterine bleeding and other gynecologic complications J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20 2013 562 572
9. J.M. Dodd, E.R. Anderson, and S. Gates Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of cesarean section Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3 2008 CD004732
10. E. Bujold, M. Goyet, and S. Marcoux The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture Obstet Gynecol 116 2010 43 50
11. CAESAR Study Collaborative Group Cesarean section surgical techniques: a randomized factorial trial (CAESAR) BJOG 117 2010 1366 1376
12. D.J. Lyell, A.B. Caughey, E. Hu, and K. Daniels Peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions Obstet Gynecol 106 2005 275 280
13. S.J. Chapman, J. Owen, and J.C. Hauth One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy Obstet Gynecol 89 1997 16 18
14. E. Bujold, C. Bujold, E.F. Hamilton, F. Harel, and R.J. Gauthier The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture Am J Obstet Gynecol 186 2002 1326 1330
15. S. Roberge, N. Chaillet, and A. Boutin Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture Int J Gynaecol Obstet 115 2011 5 10
16. L.M. Borges, A. Scapinelli, D. de Baptista Depes, U.G. Lippi, and R.G. Coelho Lopes Findings in patients with postmenstrual spotting with prior cesarean section J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17 2010 361 364
17. Y. Chang, E.M. Tsai, C.Y. Long, C.L. Lee, and N. Kay Resectoscopic treatment combined with sonohysterographic evaluation of women with postmenstrual bleeding as a result of previous cesarean delivery scar defects Am J Obstet Gynecol 200 2009 370.e1 370.e4
18. C.J. Wang, H.J. Huang, A. Chao, Y.P. Lin, Y.J. Pan, and S.G. Horng Challenges in the transvaginal management of abnormal uterine bleeding secondary to cesarean section scar defect Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 154 2011 218 222
19. T. Uppal, V. Lanzarone, and M. Mongelli Sonographically detected cesarean section scar defects and menstrual irregularity J Obstet Gynaecol 31 2011 413 416
20. O.V. Osser, and L. Valentin Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women Obstet Gynecol 117 2011 525 532
21. E. Bujold, N. Jastrow, J. Simoneau, S. Brunet, and R.J. Gauthier Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment Am J Obstet Gynecol 201 2009 320.e1 320.e6
22. N. Jastrow, N. Chaillet, S. Roberge, A.M. Morency, Y. Lacasse, and E. Bujold Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review J Obstet Gynaecol Can 32 2010 321 327
23. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed March 14, 2014.
24. K.F. Schulz, I. Chalmers, R.J. Hayes, and D.G. Altman Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials JAMA 273 1995 408 412
25. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med 6 2009 e1000097
26. G. Pridjian Labor after prior cesarean section Clin Obstet Gynecol 35 1992 445 446
27. M. Varner Cesarean scar imaging and prediction of subsequent obstetric complications Clin Obstet Gynecol 55 2012 988 996
28. J.P. Higgins, S.G. Thompson, J.J. Deeks, and D.G. Altman Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ 327 2003 557 560
29. R. DerSimonian, and N. Laird Meta-analysis in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 7 1986 177 188
30. CORONIS Collaborative Group E. Abalos, V. Addo, and P. Brocklehurst Cesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomized controlled trial Lancet 382 2013 234 248
31. H.P. Banad Single versus double layer uterine closure in lower segment cesarean section: a comparative study 2006 Obstetrics Gynecology, Rajv Gandhi University of Health Science Bijapur (India)
32. S. Batioglu, E. Kuscu, E.H. Duran, and A. Haberal One-layer closure of low segment transverse uterine incision by the Lembert technique J Gynecol Surg 14 1998 11 14
33. K. Bjorklund, M. Kimaro, E. Urassa, and G. Lindmark Introduction of the Misgav Ladach cesarean section at an African tertiary center: a randomized controlled trial BJOG 107 2000 209 216
34. K. Borowski, J. Andrews, M. Hocking, W. Hansen, D. Fleener, and C. Syrop Ultrasonographic detection of cesarean scar defects in a trial of single versus double layer closure Am J Obstet Gynecol 197 2007 S62
35. K. Chitra, A. Nirmala, R. Gayetri, N. Jayanthi, and J. Shanthi Misgav Ladach cesarean section vs Pfannenstiel cesarean section J Obstet Gynaecol India 54 2004 473 477
36. M.N. El-Gharib, and A.M. Awara Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar thickness after single versus double layer closure of transverse lower segment cesarean section J Basic Clin Reprod Sci 2 2013 42 45 Available at: http://www.jbcrs.org/. Accessed March 14, 2014.
37. A.G. Ferrari, L.G. Frigerio, and G. Candotti Can Joel-Cohen incision and single layer reconstruction reduce cesarean section morbidity? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 72 2001 135 143
38. A. Guyot-Cottrel Essai CHORUS: Comparaison de l'aspect échographique de la cicatrice de césarienne selon une fermeture utérine en un plan ou en deux plans 2011 Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Descarte Paris
39. B.D. Hamar, S.B. Saber, and M. Cackovic Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure Obstet Gynecol 110 2007 808 813
40. J.C. Hauth, J. Owen, and R.O. Davis Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers Am J Obstet Gynecol 167 1992 1108 1111
41. K. Lal, and P. Tsomo Comparative study of single layer and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section Int J Gynaecol Obstet 27 1988 349 352
42. A.F. Nabhan Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean Int J Gynaecol Obstet 100 2008 69 75
43. Poonam, B. Banerjee, S.N. Singh, and A. Raina The Misgav Ladach method: a step forward in the operative technique of cesarean section Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 4 2006 198 202
44. A.K. Sood Single versus double layer closure of low transverse uterine incision and cesarean section J Obstet Gynaecol India 55 2005 231 236
45. G. Wallin, and O. Fall Modified Joel-Cohen technique for cesarean delivery Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106 1999 221 226
46. P. Xavier, D. Ayres-De-Campos, A. Reynolds, M. Guimaraes, C. Costa-Santos, and B. Patricio The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84 2005 878 882
47. S. Yasmin, J. Sadaf, and N. Fatima Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat cesarean section scar of lower uterine segment J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 21 2011 522 526
48. O. Ceci, C. Cantatore, and M. Scioscia Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38 2012 1302 1307
49. O. Dicle, C. Kucukler, T. Pirnar, Y. Erata, and C. Posaci Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections Eur Radiol 7 1997 31 34
50. E. Bujold, S.H. Mehta, C. Bujold, and R.J. Gauthier Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture Am J Obstet Gynecol 187 2002 1199 1202
51. C. Fabres, P. Arriagada, C. Fernandez, A. Mackenna, F. Zegers, and E. Fernandez Surgical treatment and follow-up of women with intermenstrual bleeding due to cesarean section scar defect J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12 2005 25 28
52. Y.L. Feng, M.X. Li, X.Q. Liang, and X.M. Li Hysteroscopic treatment of postcesarean scar defect J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19 2012 498 502
53. C.Y. Spong, and J.T. Quennan Uterine scar assessment: how should it be done before trial of labor after cesarean delivery? Obstet Gynecol 117 2011 521 522
54. M.L. Marotta, J. Donnez, J. Squifflet, P. Jadoul, N. Darii, and O. Donnez Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean section uterine scar defects diagnosed in nonpregnant women J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20 2013 386 391
55. S. Demers, S. Roberge, and E. Bujold Laparoscopic repair of post-cesarean uterine scar defect J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20 2013 537
56. S. Roberge, A. Boutin, and N. Chaillet Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect Am J Perinatol 29 2012 465 471