Literature DB >> 12421172

Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does it make a difference?

Massimo Franchi1, Fabio Ghezzi, Luigi Raio, Edoardo Di Naro, Massimiliano Miglierina, Massimo Agosti, Pierfrancesco Bolis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the technique to open the abdomen might influence the operative time and the maternal and neonatal outcome.
METHODS: All consecutive women who underwent a cesarean section at a gestational age greater than or equal to 32 weeks were randomly allocated to have either the Joel-Cohen or the Pfannenstiel incision. Exclusion criteria were two or more previous cesarean sections and previous longitudinal abdominal incision. During the study period 366 patients underwent a cesarean delivery. Of these patients, 56 did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining patients were allocated to the Joel-Cohen (n = 152) group and to the Pfannenstiel (n = 158) group. Extraction time was defined as the time interval from skin incision to the clamping of the umbilical cord.
RESULTS: The total operative time was similar in both groups [Joel-Cohen 32 min (12-60) vs. Pfannenstiel 33 min (18-70)]. The extraction time was shorter in the Joel-Cohen group than in the Pfannenstiel group [190 s (60-600) vs. 240 s (50-600), p = 0.05]. This remained statistically significant after adjustment for confounding variables (Hazard = 1.26, p = 0.05). No difference was found between groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications. No difference was found in the neonatal neurodevelopmental assessment at 6 months of age in relation to the abdominal incision performed.
CONCLUSION: The Joel-Cohen method of opening the abdomen at cesarean delivery is faster then the Pfannenstiel technique at delivering the fetus. However, considering the absence of benefits to the mother and the fetus there is no clear indication for performing a Joel-Cohen incision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12421172     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811108.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  7 in total

1.  The Pfannenstiel or so called "bikini cut": still effective more than 100 years after first description.

Authors:  K Kisielinski; J Conze; A H Murken; N N Lenzen; U Klinge; V Schumpelick
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2004-03-02       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  A randomized comparative study on modified Joel-Cohen incision versus Pfannenstiel incision for cesarean section.

Authors:  Shyama Prasad Saha; Nabendu Bhattarcharjee; Sabysachi Das Mahanta; Animesh Naskar; Sanjoy Kumar Bhattacharyya
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2013-03-01

Review 3.  Techniques for caesarean section.

Authors:  G J Hofmeyr; M Mathai; A Shah; N Novikova
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-01-23

4.  Maternal and fetal effect of misgav ladach cesarean section in nigerian women: a randomized control study.

Authors:  Oc Ezechi; Pm Ezeobi; Cv Gab-Okafor; A Edet; Ca Nwokoro; A Akinlade
Journal:  Ann Med Health Sci Res       Date:  2013-10

5.  Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review.

Authors:  Salvatore Gizzo; Alessandra Andrisani; Marco Noventa; Stefania Di Gangi; Michela Quaranta; Erich Cosmi; Donato D'Antona; Giovanni Battista Nardelli; Guido Ambrosini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges.

Authors:  Sivan Zuarez-Easton; Noah Zafran; Gali Garmi; Raed Salim
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2017-02-17

7.  The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 3.007

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.