Baris Kaya1, Onur Guralp2, Abdullah Tuten3, Orhan Unal4, Melih Ozgur Celik5, Askın Dogan6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Near East University, Lefkosa-TRNC, Mersin 10, Turkey. mdbariskaya@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Oldenburg University Hospital, Oldenburg, Germany. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sakarya University, Adapazarı/Sakarya, Turkey. 5. Department of Anesthesiology and Clinical Care Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jena University, Jena, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate various aspects of two popular uterine sparing techniques, the B-Lynch uterine compression suture and Bakri balloon tamponade, in severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). METHODS: 21 women who underwent the Bakri balloon procedure and 24 women who underwent the B-Lynch suture as primary uterus-sparing methods, due to PPH not responding to medical treatment, were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The success rates of the B-Lynch procedure and the Bakri balloon were 79.1 and 80 %, respectively. The success rates of the B-Lynch + IIAL and the Bakri balloon + IIAL were 91.6 and 95 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in success rates, mean duration of time to stop bleeding, estimated blood loss, transfused packed red blood cells or mean duration of hospital stay between the B-Lynch and the Bakri balloon groups. The duration of operation was significantly longer in the Bakri balloon compared to the B-Lynch group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our study, the Bakri balloon and the B-Lynch suture had similar success rates in uterine atony during CS. The advantages of the B-Lynch suture include rapid application with no need for lithotomy position or extra material; whereas the Bakri balloon is less invasive and easier to learn, but more time consuming and expensive compared to the B-Lynch suture. We suggest that the B-Lynch suture may be preferred in uterine atony during CS in low resource settings; however, the less invasive Bakri balloon should be the first line in full resource settings. Further studies are needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods.
PURPOSE: To evaluate various aspects of two popular uterine sparing techniques, the B-Lynch uterine compression suture and Bakri balloon tamponade, in severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). METHODS: 21 women who underwent the Bakri balloon procedure and 24 women who underwent the B-Lynch suture as primary uterus-sparing methods, due to PPH not responding to medical treatment, were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The success rates of the B-Lynch procedure and the Bakri balloon were 79.1 and 80 %, respectively. The success rates of the B-Lynch + IIAL and the Bakri balloon + IIAL were 91.6 and 95 %, respectively. There was no significant difference in success rates, mean duration of time to stop bleeding, estimated blood loss, transfused packed red blood cells or mean duration of hospital stay between the B-Lynch and the Bakri balloon groups. The duration of operation was significantly longer in the Bakri balloon compared to the B-Lynch group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In our study, the Bakri balloon and the B-Lynch suture had similar success rates in uterine atony during CS. The advantages of the B-Lynch suture include rapid application with no need for lithotomy position or extra material; whereas the Bakri balloon is less invasive and easier to learn, but more time consuming and expensive compared to the B-Lynch suture. We suggest that the B-Lynch suture may be preferred in uterine atony during CS in low resource settings; however, the less invasive Bakri balloon should be the first line in full resource settings. Further studies are needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods.
Authors: Joshua P Vogel; Alyce N Wilson; Nick Scott; Mariana Widmer; Fernando Althabe; Olufemi T Oladapo Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.561