Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed (original) (raw)
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2008 Mar;111(3):639-47.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816521e2.
Affiliations
- PMID: 18310366
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816521e2
Randomized Controlled Trial
Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial
Isabela Cristina Coutinho et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Mar.
Erratum in
- Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jul;112(1):188
Abstract
Objective: To compare extra-abdominal to intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery.
Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial conducted at the Instituto Materno-Infantil Prof. Fernando Figueira (Recife, Brazil). Inclusion criteria were indication for cesarean delivery and gestational age of 24 weeks or more. Patients with two or more cesarean deliveries, chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, inability to consent, and previous abdominal surgery were excluded. Variables analyzed were nausea, vomiting, mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of surgical sutures for uterine repair, postoperative pain evaluated by the visual analog scale, number of postoperative analgesic doses, surgical site infection, and endometritis.
Results: The analysis included 325 patients randomized for exteriorized uterine repair and 312 patients randomized for in situ uterine repair. A significant difference was observed in duration of surgery: lasting less than 45 minutes (44% with exteriorized uterus compared with 35.3% with in situ uterus, P=.02; number needed to treat=12) and less need of sutures (18.2% requiring one suture in the exteriorized group compared with 11.9% in the in situ group, P=.03; number needed to treat=16). The frequency of moderate or severe pain 6 hours after surgery was low [corrected] in women with in situ [corrected] repair (23.1%) when compared to those with the uterus exteriorized [corrected] (32.6%) (P=.026; number needed to treat=11). There was no difference between the groups in relation to other variables.
Conclusion: There is no significant difference between extra-abdominal and intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery, but the number of sutures is lower and surgical time is shorter with extra-abdominal repair, although moderate and severe pain at 6 hours is less frequent with in situ uterine repair.
Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00550888.
Comment in
- Re: Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
Blumenfeld Y, Caughey AB, Lyell DJ. Blumenfeld Y, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jul;112(1):183; author reply 183. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31817f22ea. Obstet Gynecol. 2008. PMID: 18591325 No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.
Siddiqui M, Goldszmidt E, Fallah S, Kingdom J, Windrim R, Carvalho JC. Siddiqui M, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Sep;110(3):570-5. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000277712.67230.22. Obstet Gynecol. 2007. PMID: 17766602 Clinical Trial. - A randomized controlled trial of uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair of the uterine incision during cesarean delivery.
El-Khayat W, Elsharkawi M, Hassan A. El-Khayat W, et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;127(2):163-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.05.004. Epub 2014 Jun 19. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014. PMID: 25005057 Clinical Trial. - Comparison of uterine exteriorization and in situ repair during cesarean sections.
Gode F, Okyay RE, Saatli B, Ertugrul C, Guclu S, Altunyurt S. Gode F, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Jun;285(6):1541-5. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2186-1. Epub 2011 Dec 29. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012. PMID: 22205186 - Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zaphiratos V, George RB, Boyd JC, Habib AS. Zaphiratos V, et al. Can J Anaesth. 2015 Nov;62(11):1209-20. doi: 10.1007/s12630-015-0448-2. Epub 2015 Aug 22. Can J Anaesth. 2015. PMID: 26296298 Review. - Knotless Barbed versus Conventional Suture for Closure of the Uterine Incision at Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Raischer HB, Massalha M, Iskander R, Izhaki I, Salim R. Raischer HB, et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022 Jul;29(7):832-839. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.05.001. Epub 2022 May 7. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022. PMID: 35533955 Review.
Cited by
- Clinical evaluation of preoperative three -item questionnaire and pain experienced on infiltration of local anesthetics to predict severity of acute pain after caesarean section.
Gupta D, Kerai S, Saxena KN, Gaur S. Gupta D, et al. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Apr-Jun;39(2):273-278. doi: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_378_21. Epub 2022 Aug 22. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2023. PMID: 37564838 Free PMC article. - The Health Impact of Surgical Techniques and Assistive Methods Used in Cesarean Deliveries: A Systemic Review.
Wang LH, Seow KM, Chen LR, Chen KH. Wang LH, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Sep 21;17(18):6894. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186894. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 32967222 Free PMC article. - Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair: effect on intraoperative nausea and vomiting during repeat cesarean delivery - A randomized clinical trial.
Abdellah MS, Abbas AM, Ali MK, Mahmoud A, Abdullah SA. Abdellah MS, et al. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2018 Sep;10(3):131-137. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2018. PMID: 31191847 Free PMC article. - CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. Moher D, et al. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869. BMJ. 2010. PMID: 20332511 Free PMC article. No abstract available. - Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section.
Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr G. Jacobs-Jokhan D, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;2004(4):CD000085. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000085.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004. PMID: 15494988 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical