E Darj1, M L Nordström. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of two different methods of cesarean section (CS). DESIGN: The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: All CS were performed at the University Hospital in Uppsala, Sweden. POPULATION: Fifty women admitted to hospital for a first elective CS were consecutively included in the study. They were randomly allocated to two groups. METHODS: One group was operated on by the Misgav Ladach method for CS and the other group by the Pfannenstiel method. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of operation, amount of bleeding, analgesics required, scar appearance and length of hospitalization. RESULTS:Operating time was significantly different between the two methods, with an average of 12.5 minutes with the Misgav Ladach method and 26 minutes with the Pfannenstiel method (p<0.001). The amount of blood loss differed significantly, with 448 ml and 608 ml respectively (p=0.017). Significantly less analgesic injections and tablets (p=0.004) were needed after the Misgav Ladach method. CONCLUSION: The Misgav Ladach method of CS has advantages over the Pfannenstiel method by being significantly quicker to perform, with a reduced amount of bleeding and diminished postoperative pain. The women were satisfied with the appearance of their scars. In this study no negative effects of the new operation technique were discovered.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of two different methods of cesarean section (CS). DESIGN: The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: All CS were performed at the University Hospital in Uppsala, Sweden. POPULATION: Fifty women admitted to hospital for a first elective CS were consecutively included in the study. They were randomly allocated to two groups. METHODS: One group was operated on by the Misgav Ladach method for CS and the other group by the Pfannenstiel method. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of operation, amount of bleeding, analgesics required, scar appearance and length of hospitalization. RESULTS: Operating time was significantly different between the two methods, with an average of 12.5 minutes with the Misgav Ladach method and 26 minutes with the Pfannenstiel method (p<0.001). The amount of blood loss differed significantly, with 448 ml and 608 ml respectively (p=0.017). Significantly less analgesic injections and tablets (p=0.004) were needed after the Misgav Ladach method. CONCLUSION: The Misgav Ladach method of CS has advantages over the Pfannenstiel method by being significantly quicker to perform, with a reduced amount of bleeding and diminished postoperative pain. The women were satisfied with the appearance of their scars. In this study no negative effects of the new operation technique were discovered.