Colin A Walsh1, Stewart R Walsh. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK. Colin.Walsh@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cesarean section delivery is a commonly performed surgical procedure, and rates of cesarean delivery are increasing. Previous randomized trials that compared extraabdominal and intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean section delivery have yielded conflicting results. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a metaanalysis of published randomized controlled trials that addressed the method of uterine repair at cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was incidence of perioperative complications. The secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for categoric variables with random effects models. Continuous variables were compared by means of weighted mean differences. RESULTS: No significant differences in either postoperative or intraoperative complications were demonstrated between the extraabdominal (n = 1605) and intraabdominal repair (n = 1578) groups. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were all unaffected by repair technique. This study cannot exclude differences in rare complications, such as serious venous air embolism or maternal death. CONCLUSION: No differences in complication rates were found between extraabdominal and intraabdominal repair at cesarean section delivery; both techniques are valid surgical options.
OBJECTIVE: Cesarean section delivery is a commonly performed surgical procedure, and rates of cesarean delivery are increasing. Previous randomized trials that compared extraabdominal and intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean section delivery have yielded conflicting results. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a metaanalysis of published randomized controlled trials that addressed the method of uterine repair at cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was incidence of perioperative complications. The secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for categoric variables with random effects models. Continuous variables were compared by means of weighted mean differences. RESULTS: No significant differences in either postoperative or intraoperative complications were demonstrated between the extraabdominal (n = 1605) and intraabdominal repair (n = 1578) groups. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were all unaffected by repair technique. This study cannot exclude differences in rare complications, such as serious venous air embolism or maternal death. CONCLUSION: No differences in complication rates were found between extraabdominal and intraabdominal repair at cesarean section delivery; both techniques are valid surgical options.