Literature DB >> 16097980

The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial.

Pedro Xavier1, Diogo Ayres-De-Campos, Ana Reynolds, Mariana Guimarães, Cristina Costa-Santos, Belmiro Patrício.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modifications to the classic cesarean section technique described by Pfannenstiel and Kerr have been proposed in the last few years. The objective of this trial was to compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes between the Pfannenstiel-Kerr and the modified Misgav-Ladach (MML) techniques for cesarean section.
METHODS: This prospective randomized trial involved 162 patients undergoing transverse lower uterine segment cesarean section. Patients were allocated to one of the two arms: 88 to the MML technique and 74 to the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique. Main outcome measures were defined as the duration of surgery, analgesic requirements, and bowel restitution by the second postoperative day. Additional outcomes evaluated were febrile morbidity, postoperative antibiotic use, postpartum endometritis, and wound complications. Student's t, Mann-Whitney, and Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis of the results, and a p < 0.05 was considered as the probability level reflecting significant differences.
RESULTS: No differences between groups were noted in the incidence of analgesic requirements, bowel restitution by the second postoperative day, febrile morbidity, antibiotic requirements, endometritis, or wound complications. The MML technique took on average 12 min less to complete (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The MML technique is faster to perform and similar in terms of febrile morbidity, time to bowel restitution, or need for postoperative medications. It is likely to be more cost-effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16097980     DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00631.x

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Techniques for caesarean section.

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

2.  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 3.  Evidence-Based Cesarean Delivery for the Nonobstetrician.

Authors:  Joshua D Dahlke; Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Jeffrey D Sperling; Lindsay Maggio; Brendan D Connealy; Suneet P Chauhan
Journal:  Surg J (N Y)       Date:  2015-12-18

4.  Suture Closure versus Non-Closure of Subcutaneous Fat and Cosmetic Outcome after Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Heinrich Husslein; Martina Gutschi; Heinz Leipold; Christoph Herbst; Maximilian Franz; Christof Worda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.