Literature DB >> 24680843

Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery.

Osman Sevket1, Seda Ates2, Taner Molla2, Fulya Ozkal2, Omer Uysal3, Ramazan Dansuk2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 2 suturing techniques (single versus double layer) on healing of the uterine scar after a cesarean delivery.
METHODS: In the present randomized, prospective study, 36 women with a term pregnancy who had an elective cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to closure of the uterine incision with a single-layer locked suture or with a double-layer locked/unlocked suture. Six months after the operation, the integrity of the cesarean scar at the uterine incision site was assessed by hydrosonography. The healing ratio and the thickness of the residual myometrium covering the defect were calculated as markers of uterine scar healing.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of estimated blood loss, operation time, or additional hemostatic suture. However, the mean thickness of the residual myometrium covering the defect was 9.95 ± 1.94 mm after a double-layer closure and 7.53 ± 2.54 mm after a single-layer closure (P = 0.005). The mean healing ratio was significantly higher after a double-layer closure (0.83 ± 0.10) than after a single-layer closure (0.67 ± 0.15; P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: A double-layer locked/unlocked closure of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery decreases the risk of poor uterine scar healing.
Copyright © 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean delivery; Hydrosonography; Scar defect; Suture technique

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24680843     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet        ISSN: 0020-7292            Impact factor:   3.561


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of uterine scar healing by transvaginal ultrasound in 607 nonpregnant women with a history of cesarean section.

Authors:  Xingchen Zhou; Tao Zhang; Huayuan Qiao; Yi Zhang; Xipeng Wang
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 2.  Scar Tissue after a Cesarean Section-The Management of Different Complications in Pregnant Women.

Authors:  Aleksandra Stupak; Adrianna Kondracka; Agnieszka Fronczek; Anna Kwaśniewska
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of hysteroscopic electric resection versus vaginal surgery in the treatment of uterine scar defects after cesarean section.

Authors:  Yongxing Yuan; Jianjian Gao; Jing Wang; Xi Hu; Ping Liu; Hailin Wang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-07

4.  Cost-effectiveness of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sanne I Stegwee; Ângela J Ben; Mohamed El Alili; Lucet F van der Voet; Christianne J M de Groot; Judith E Bosmans; Judith A F Huirne
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Ultrasonographic criteria of cesarean scar defect evaluation.

Authors:  Andrzej Woźniak; Krzysztof Pyra; Hugo Rio Tinto; Sławomir Woźniak
Journal:  J Ultrason       Date:  2018

6.  The impact of mechanical cervical dilatation during elective cesarean section on postpartum scar integrity: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Authors:  Ayman Shehata Dawood; Adel Elgergawy; Ahmed Elhalwagy; Walid M Ataallah; Shereen B Elbohoty; Shereef L Elshwaikh; Amal A Elsokary; Ahmed M Elkhyat; Amr T Elbadry; Ahmed M Abbas
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2019-01-10

7.  The Case for Standardizing Cesarean Delivery Technique: Seeing the Forest for the Trees.

Authors:  Joshua D Dahlke; Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Lindsay Maggio; Jeffrey D Sperling; Suneet P Chauhan; Dwight J Rouse
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 7.623

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.