Document Detail


Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  15494988     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described to reduce morbidity during caesarean section. After the baby has been born by caesarean section and the placenta has been extracted, temporary removal of the uterus from the abdominal cavity (exteriorisation of the uterus) to facilitate repair of the uterine incision has been postulated as a valuable technique. This is particularly so when exposure of the incision is difficult and when there are problems with haemostasis. Several clinical trials have been done, with varying results, including substantial reduction in the rate of postoperative infection and morbidity with extra-abdominal closure of the uterine incision, and less associated peri-operative haemorrhage. Subsequent studies suggest that the method of placental removal rather than method of closure of the uterine incision influences peri-operative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of extra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision compared to intra-abdominal repair.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2003) and PubMed (1966 to 2003).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of uterine exteriorisation with intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision in women undergoing caesarean section.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the trials identified for inclusion. We compared categorical data using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals and continuous data using the weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. We tested for statistical heterogeneity between trials using the I squared test. Where no significant heterogeneity (greater than 50%) existed, we pooled data using a fixed effect model. If significant heterogeneity existed, a random effects model was used.
MAIN RESULTS: Six studies were included, with 1294 women randomised overall, and 1221 women included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in most of the outcomes identified, except for febrile morbidity and length of hospital stay. With extra-abdominal closure of the uterine incision, febrile morbidity was lower (relative risk 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.97), and the hospital stay was longer (weighted mean difference 0.24 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from this review to make definitive conclusions about which method of uterine closure offers greater advantages, if any. However, these results are based on too few and too small studies to detect differences in rare, but severe, complications.
Authors:
D Jacobs-Jokhan; G Hofmeyr
Related Documents :
9015018 - Acute pelvic inflammatory disease: associations of clinical and laboratory findings wit...
24618188 - Socioeconomic differences in alcohol-attributable mortality compared with all-cause mor...
20362288 - Risk factors for vaginal prolapse after hysterectomy.
19454058 - Genital prolapse in women.
19493638 - Managing urogenital atrophy.
1804078 - Trends in contraception and sterilization in australia.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Review     Date:  2004-10-18
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Cochrane database of systematic reviews     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1469-493X     ISO Abbreviation:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev     Publication Date:  2004  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2004-10-20     Completed Date:  2005-03-23     Revised Date:  2013-06-28    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100909747     Medline TA:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  CD000085     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Effective Care Research Unit, P Bag X9047, East London, South Africa, 5201.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Cesarean Section* / methods
Female
Humans
Pregnancy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Uterus / surgery*
Comments/Corrections
Update Of:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000085   [PMID:  10796124 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Doxapram treatment for apnea in preterm infants.
Next Document:  Physician advice for smoking cessation.