Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a Cesarean uterine incision: Randomized controlled trial

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 417-422

  Bennich, G ^a   Rudnicki, M ^b   Wilken Jensen, C ^c   Lousen, T ^a   Lassen, P D ^a   Wojdemann K ^d  

^a ROSKILDE HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c HVIDOVRE HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^d Bornholm Hospital   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; double layer; randomized trial; single layer; ultrasonography; uterine closure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; MYOMETRIUM; PARITY; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; PUERPERIUM; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGERY; SURGICAL WOUND; SUTURE TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CICATRIX; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; MYOMETRIUM; PARITY; POSTPARTUM PERIOD; PREGNANCY; SURGICAL WOUND; SUTURE TECHNIQUES;

EID: 84963692111     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.15792     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP,. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1607-1617.
2. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E, Abdous B, Sidi EA, Kinch R, Miner L, Masse A, Fortin C, Gagné GP, Fortier A, Bastien G, Sabbah R, Guimond P, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ,. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 43-50.
3. Guise J-M, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BKS, Helfand M,. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous Cesarean section. BMJ 2004; 329: 19-25.
4. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N, Gauthier RJ, Hudic I, Shipp TD, Weimar CH, Fatusic Z, Demers S, Bujold E,. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115: 5-10.
5. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I,. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347: 281-284.
6. Osser OV, Jokubkiene L, Valentin L,. Cesarean section scar defects: agreement between transvaginal sonographic findings with and without saline contrast enhancement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 75-83.
7. Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, Magloire LK, Pettker CM, Abdel-Razeq SS, Rosenberg VA, Buhimschi IA, Buhimschi CS,. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 808-813.
8. Sevket O, Ates S, Molla T, Ozkal F, Uysal O, Dansuk R,. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 125: 219-222.
9. EL-Gharib MN, Awara AM,. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar thickness after single versus double layer closure of transverse lower segment cesarean section. J Basic Clin Reprod Sci 2013; 2: 42-45.
10. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M,. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 615-621.
11. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L,. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 525-532.
12. Gupta SK,. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2: 109-112.
13. Bij de Vaate AJ, van der Voet LF, Naji O, Witmer M, Veersema S, Brölmann HA, Bourne T, Huirne JA,. Prevalence, potential risk factors for development and symptoms related to the presence of uterine niches following Cesarean section: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 372-382.
14. Glavind J, Madsen LD, Uldbjerg N, Dueholm M,. Ultrasound evaluation of Cesarean scar after single- and double-layer uterotomy closure: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 207-212.
15. Ceci O, Cantatore C, Scioscia M, Nardelli C, Ravi M, Vimercati A, Bettocchi S,. Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012; 38: 1302-1307.
16. Dicle O, Küçükler C, Pirnar T, Erata Y, Posaci C,. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of incision healing after cesarean sections. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 31-34.
17. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Ekholm-Selling K, Råssjö E-B, Jonsson M,. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single- compared with double-layer closure: a Swedish cohort study. BJOG 2015; 122: 1535-1541.
18. Roberge S, Bujold E,. Closure of uterus and the risk of uterine rupture. BJOG 2015; 122: 1542.