Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial

The Lancet

Volumn 388, Issue 10039, 2016, Pages 62-72

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHROMIC CATGUT; POLYGLACTIN; CATGUT;

ABDOMINAL SURGERY; ABDOMINAL WALL CLOSURE; ABDOMINAL WALL HERNIA; ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CHILD DEATH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DYSPAREUNIA; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FOLLOW UP; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; INTESTINE OBSTRUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL DEATH; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NEWBORN MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PELVIC DISEASE; PELVIC PAIN; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK FACTOR; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SUTURE; TREATMENT DURATION; UTERUS RUPTURE; UTERUS SURGERY; ADULT; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISSECTION; MULTICENTER STUDY; PERITONEUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; UTERUS; WOUND CLOSURE;

ADULT; CATGUT; CESAREAN SECTION; DISSECTION; DYSPAREUNIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; PELVIC PAIN; PERITONEUM; POLYGLACTIN 910; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; UTERUS; WOUND CLOSURE TECHNIQUES;

EID: 84964959548     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00204-X     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. 1 The CORONIS Collaborative Group. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 382 (2013), 234–248.
2. 2 The CORONIS Collaborative Group. CORONIS. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: the follow-up study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 13, 2013, 215.
3. 3 The CORONIS Collaborative Group. Health Assessment Questionnaire. https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/downloads/files/coronis-follow-up/CORONIS-Health-Assessment-Questionnaire-V417Sept13.pdf (accessed Oct 1, 2015).
4. 4 The CORONIS Collaborative Group. Event report form. httw.npeu.ox.ac.uk/coronis-follow-up/documents (accessed Oct 1, 2015).
5. 5 Roset, E, Boulvain, M, Irion, O, Nonclosure of the peritoneum during caesarean section: long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obst Gyn Reprod Biol 108 (2003), 40–44.
6. 6 Chapman, SJ, Owen, J, Hauth, JC, One versus two layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 89 (1997), 16–18.
7. 7 Gates, S, Brocklehurst, P, How should randomised trials including multiple pregnancies be analysed?. BJOG 111 (2004), 213–219.
8. 8 Fitzpatrick, KE, Kurinczuk, JJ, Alfirevic, Z, Spark, P, Brocklehurst, P, Knight, M, Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med, 9, 2012, e1001184.
9. 9 NICE. Caesarean section. NICE clinical guideline 132. www.nice.org.uk/CG132, November, 2011 (accessed Oct 1, 2015).
10. 10 Berghella, V, Baxter, JK, Chauhan, SP, Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193 (2005), 1607–1617.
11. 11 Walsh, C, Evidence based caesarean technique. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22 (2010), 110–115.
12. 12 Hofmeyr, GJ, Mathai, M, Shah, AN, Novikova, N, Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, 2008 CD004662.
13. 13 Aabakke, A, Krebs, L, Ladelund, S, Secher, N, Incidence of incisional hernia after caesarean delivery: a register-based cohort study. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e108829.
14. 14 Bamigboye, AA, Hofmeyr, GJ, Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 8, 2014 CD000163.
15. 15 Cheong, YC, Premkumar, G, Metwally, M, Peacock, JL, Li, TC, To close of not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Repro Biol 147 (2009), 3–8.
16. 16 Shi, Z, Ma, L, Yang, Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section – a meta-analysis and systematic Review. BJOG 118 (2011), 410–422.
17. 17 Bujold, E, Bujold, C, Hamilton, EF, Harel, F, Gauthier, RJ, The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186 (2002), 1326–1330.
18. 18 Durnwald, C, Mercer, B, Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 (2003), 925–929.
19. 19 Chauhan, SP, Martin, JN Jr, Henrichs, CE, Morrison, JC, Magann, EF, Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 (2003), 408–417.
20. 20 Dodd, JM, Anderson, ER, Gates, S, Grivell, RM, Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7, 2014 CD004732.
21. 21 Roberge, S, Dmers, S, Berghella, V, Chaillet, N, Moore, L, Bujold, E, Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcome and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211 (2014), 453–460.
22. 22 Roberge, S, Chaillet, N, Boutin, A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynecol Obstet 115 (2011), 5–10.
23. 23 The CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 117 (2010), 1366–1376.