Literature DB >> 24912096

Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

Stéphanie Roberge1, Suzanne Demers2, Vincenzo Berghella3, Nils Chaillet4, Lynne Moore1, Emmanuel Bujold5.   

Abstract

A systematic review and metaanalysis were performed through electronic database searches to estimate the effect of uterine closure at cesarean on the risk of adverse maternal outcome and on uterine scar evaluated by ultrasound. Randomized controlled trials, which compared single vs double layers and locking vs unlocking sutures for uterine closure of low transverse cesarean, were included. Outcomes were short-term complications (endometritis, wound infection, maternal infectious morbidity, blood transfusion, duration of surgical procedure, length of hospital stay, mean blood loss), uterine rupture or dehiscence at next pregnancy, and uterine scar evaluation by ultrasound. Twenty of 1278 citations were included in the analysis. We found that all types of closure were comparable for short-term maternal outcomes, except for single-layer closure, which had shorter operative time (-6.1 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.7 to -3.4; P < .001) than double-layer closure. Single layer (-2.6 mm; 95% CI, -3.1 to -2.1; P < .001) and locked first layer (mean difference, -2.5 mm; 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.8; P < .001) were associated with lower residual myometrial thickness. Two studies reported no significant difference between single- vs double-layer closure for uterine dehiscence (relative risk, 1.86; 95% CI, 0.44-7.90; P = .40) or uterine rupture (no case). In conclusion, current evidence based on randomized trials does not support a specific type of uterine closure for optimal maternal outcomes and is insufficient to conclude about the risk of uterine rupture. Single-layer closure and locked first layer are possibly coupled with thinner residual myometrium thickness.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cesarean; ultrasound evaluation; uterine closure; uterine scar defect

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24912096     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  11 in total

1.  The potential risk factors of placenta increta and the role of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane.

Authors:  Yan Long; Min Jiang; Fei Gao; Mengru Han; Qiangsheng Gan; Fangling Zeng; Shanshui Zeng; Yanwei Hu; Xianhui Dong; Weitao Ye; Chunyan Zhu; Hongling Yang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 2.493

2.  Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  E Abalos; V Addo; P Brocklehurst; M El Sheikh; B Farrell; S Gray; P Hardy; E Juszczak; J E Mathews; S Naz Masood; E Oyarzun; J Oyieke; J B Sharma; P Spark
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Operative technique at caesarean delivery and risk of complete uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labour at term. A registry case-control study.

Authors:  Dorthe L A Thisted; Laust H Mortensen; Lone Hvidman; Lone Krebs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Outcomes after Hysteroscopic Treatment of Symptomatic Isthmoceles in Patients with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Pelvic Pain: A Prospective Case Series.

Authors:  Ana Vegas Carrillo de Albornoz; Irene López Carrasco; Nerea Montero Pastor; Carmen Martín Blanco; María Miró Matos; Luis Alonso Pacheco; Enrique Moratalla Bartolomé
Journal:  Int J Fertil Steril       Date:  2019-04-27

5.  Efficacy of adjunctive azithromycin versus single-dose cephalosporin prophylaxis for caesarean scar defect: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Yanqing Cai; Hongjie Pan; Jian Zhang; Weiwei Cheng; Yiru Shi; Min Zeng; Liye Shi; Jin Yu; Ying Shen; Shan Chen; Qian Zhu; Ben W Mol; Ding Huang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.

Authors:  Jiri Hanacek; Jiri Vojtech; Iva Urbankova; Michal Krcmar; Petr Křepelka; Jaroslav Feyereisl; Ladislav Krofta
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 3.636

7.  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

8.  Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development.

Authors:  A J M W Vervoort; L B Uittenbogaard; W J K Hehenkamp; H A M Brölmann; B W J Mol; J A F Huirne
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  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

10.  Effect of single- and double-layer cesarean section closure on residual myometrial thickness and isthmocele - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors:  Greg J Marchand; Ahmed Masoud; Alexa King; Stacy Ruther; Giovanna Brazil; Hollie Ulibarri; Julia Parise; Amanda Arroyo; Catherine Coriell; Sydnee Goetz; Ashley Christensen; Katelyn Sainz
Journal:  Turk J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-12-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.