Single- or double-layer uterine closure techniques following cesarean: A randomized trial

被引:13
|
作者
Yilmaz Baran, Safak [1 ]
Kalayci, Hakan [1 ]
Dogan Durdag, Gulsen [1 ]
Yetkinel, Selcuk [1 ]
Alemdaroglu, Songul [1 ]
cok, Tayfun [2 ,3 ]
Bulgan Kilicdag, Esra [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Baskent Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Adana, Turkey
[2] Baskent Univ, Div Reprod Endocrinol, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Fac Med, Adana, Turkey
[3] Baskent Univ, Fac Med, IVF Unit, Adana, Turkey
关键词
cesarean delivery; surgical techniques; ultrasound; uterine closure techniques; uterine scar; SECTION SURGICAL TECHNIQUES; UTEROTOMY CLOSURE; SCAR NICHE; INCISION; OUTCOMES; FACTORIAL; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/aogs.14018
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction Cesarean deliveries are commonly performed throughout the world. Although the uterine closure technique following this procedure may influence how the uterine scar heals, there is insufficient evidence for choosing the appropriate technique and so preventing long-term negative consequences. This prospective, randomized study examined the effects of single- and double-layer uterine closure techniques on uterine scar healing following cesarean delivery. Material and methods This study assessed a total of 282 women aged 18-45 years who were in gestational weeks 24-41 of singleton pregnancies. None had previously undergone uterine surgeries. These participants completed their first cesarean deliveries at the time of study and were randomized into the following two treatment groups: single-layer closure with locking and double-layer closure with locking in the first layer, but not in the second layer (NCT03629028). However, the decidua was not included for treatment in either group. Participants were evaluated at 6-9 months after cesarean section by saline infusion sonohysterography to assess cesarean delivery scar defects. These procedures were conducted by experienced sonographers who were not aware of the uterine closure technique. Results Of the 225 final participants, 109 received the single-layer closure technique, whereas 116 received the double-layer technique. The niche rates were 37% (n = 40) for the single-layer group and 45.7% (n = 53) for the double-layer group (P = .22, relative risk 1.4, 95% CI = 0.8-4.4). Conclusions The single- and double-layer closure techniques did not produce different impacts on uterine scar niche development.
引用
收藏
页码:531 / 537
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Re: Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure
    Huirne, J. A. F.
    Stegwee, S. I.
    van der Voet, L. F.
    de Groot, C. J. M.
    Hehenkamp, W. J. K.
    Brolmann, H. A. M.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 50 (05) : 664 - +
  • [2] Re: Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure Reply
    Saccone, G.
    Sardo, A. Di Spiezio
    Berghella, V.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 50 (05) : 666 - +
  • [3] Impact of single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Vidaeff, AC
    Lucas, MJ
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (02) : 602 - 603
  • [4] The impact of a single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Cruikshank, DP
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (01) : 295 - 296
  • [5] The impact of a single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture
    Joura, EA
    Nather, A
    Hohlagschwandtner, M
    Husslein, P
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 189 (03) : 895 - 895
  • [6] Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture
    Gyamfi, Cynthia
    Juhasz, Gabor
    Gyamfi, Phyllis
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    Stone, Joanne L.
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2006, 19 (10): : 639 - 643
  • [7] The impact of a single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture - Reply
    Bujold, E
    Hamilton, EE
    Gauthier, R
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (01) : 296 - 296
  • [8] Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Sardo, A. Di Spiezio
    Saccone, G.
    Mccurdy, R.
    Bujold, E.
    Bifulco, G.
    Berghella, V.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 50 (05) : 578 - 583
  • [9] Single- vs. double-layer uterine incision closure at primary cesarean section and adhesion formation
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    Caughey, Aaron
    El-Sayed, Yasser
    Daniels, Kay
    Lyell, Deirdre
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 197 (06) : S77 - S77
  • [10] Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture
    Roberge, Stephanie
    Chaillet, Nils
    Boutin, Amelie
    Moore, Lynne
    Jastrow, Nicole
    Brassard, Normand
    Gauthier, Robert J.
    Hudic, Igor
    Shipp, Thomas D.
    Weimar, Charlotte H. E.
    Fatusic, Zlatan
    Demers, Suzanne
    Bujold, Emmanuel
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2011, 115 (01) : 5 - 10