Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Misgav-Ladach-Sectio (»der sanfte Kaiserschnitt«)

  • Chapter
Therapiehandbuch Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Zusammenfassung

Jedes operative Verfahren setzt sich aus Hunderten von Bewegungen zusammen. Jede hat eine Herkunft und ihre Geschichte, jede dient einem bestimmten Zweck und sollte einen bestimmten Ausführungsweg haben.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Alamia V, Meyer BA (1999) The development of a scoring system, obstetric parameter that predict successful vaginal delivery after caesarean birth. Obstet Gynecol 93(Suppl): 49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansaloni L, Brundisini R, Morino G, Kiura A (2001) Prospective, randomized, comparative study of Misgav Ladach versus traditional cesarean section at Nazareth Hospital, Kenya. World J Surg 25(9): 1164–1172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund K, Kimaro M, Urassa E, Lindmark G (2000) Introduction of the Misgav Ladach caesarean section at an African tertiary centre: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynecol 107(2): 209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borso A (1957) Dehiscence of hysterotomy wounds after cesarean section performed with longitudinal incision of the lower segment. Minerva Ginecol 15 9(17): 742–747

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ (2002) The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(6): 1326–1330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesgeschäftsstelle für Oualitätssicherung -BQS (2008) Qualitätsreport [http://www.bqs-institut.de/]

  • Csucs L, Kott I, Solt I (1972) Mono-layer sutures of uterine incision in cesarean section based on clinical experience and animal experiments. Zentralbl Gynäkol 26; 94(34): 1121–1126

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darj E, Nordström ML (1999) The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78:37–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe – DGGG (2006) Stellungsnahme zur Frage der erlaubten Zeit zwischen der Indikationsstellung und Sectio (E-E-Zeit) bei einer Notlage. [http://www.google.de/search7q=Stellungsnahme+zur+Frage+der+erlaubten+Zeit+zwischen+der+Indikationsstellung+und+Sectio+%28E-E-Zeit%29+bei+einer+Notlage&channel=linkdoctor]

  • Dodd JM, Crother CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Dell H (2009) Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4: CD004224

    Google Scholar 

  • Down RH, Whitehead R, Watts JM (1980) Why do surgical packs cause peritoneal adhesions ? Aust N Z J Surg 50(1): 83–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dudenhausen JW (2009) Indikationen zur abdominalen Schnittentbindung. In: Stark M (Hrsg) Der Kaiserschnitt. Urban & Fischer, München Jena, S 80–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis H (1980) Internal overhealing: the problem of intraperito-neal adhesions. World J Surg 4:303–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Federici D, Lacelli B, Muggiasca L, Agarossi A, Cipolla L, Conti M (1997) Cesarean section using the Misgav Ladach method. Int J Gynecol Obstet 57(3): 273–279

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flamm BL, Goings JR, Liu Y, Wolde-Tsadik G (1994) Elective repeat caesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol 83:927–934

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO (1992) Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167:1108–1111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey DW, Quilligan EJ (1978) Extraabdominal uterine exteriorization at cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 52(2): 189–192

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt J (1961) J.M. Munro Kerr. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 68:510–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA (2001) Is the formation of a bladder flap at caesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 98(6): 1089–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hudic I, Fatusic Z, Kameric L, Misic M, Serak I, Latifagic A (2010) Vaginal delivery after Misgav-Ladach cesarean section – is the risk of uterine rupture acceptable? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23(10): 1156–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jelsema RD, Wittingen JA, Vander Kolk KJ (1993) Continuous, nonlocking, single-layer repair of the low transverse uterine incision. J Reprod Med 38(5): 393–396

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ et al. (2004) Maternal and perinatal outcome associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl J Med 25:2581–2589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen B, Davis B (1984) Enhancement of the antibacterial property of amniotic fluid by hyperthermia. Obstet Gynecol 63(3): 425–429

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen B, Galask RP (1975) Host resistance to intraamniotic infection. Obstet Gynecol Surv 30(10): 675–691

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lasley DS, Eblen A, Yancey MK, Duff P (1997) The effect of placental removal method on the incidence of postcesarean infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176(6): 1250–1254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li M, Zou L, Zhu J (2001) Study on modification of the Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section. J Tongji Med Univ 21(1): 75–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindholt JS, Moller-Christensen T, Steele RE (1994) The cosmetic outcome of the scar formation after cesarean section: percutaneous or intracutaneous suture? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73(10): 832–835

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenwirt IP, Chi DS, Handwerker SM (1994) Nonfatal venous air embolism during cesarean section: a case report and review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv 49(1): 72–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olsham AF (1996) Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second caesarean section. N Engl J Med 335:689–695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meininger D, Byhahn C, Kessler P et al. (2003) Intrathecal fentanyl, sufentanil, or placebo combined with hyperbaric mepivacaine 2 % for parturients undergoing elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 96(3): 852–858

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moreira P, Moreau JC, Faye ME et al. (2002) Comparison of two cesarean techniques: classic versus Misgav Ladach cesarean. J Gynecol Obstet Reprod 31(6): 572–576

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mowat J, Bonnar J (1971) Abdominal wound dehiscence after caesarean section. Br Med J 2(756): 256–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EL (2000) Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labour: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(5): 1187–1197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Neeser E, Niehues U, Hirsch HA (1988) Maternal morbidity following cesarean section. Comparison of isthmo-corpus longitudinal section and isthmian transverse section in premature labor. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 48(1): 8–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Notzon FC, Cnattingius, Bergso P et al. (1994) Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: International comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:495–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Odent M (2009) Wie steht es um die Zukunft einer durch Kaiserschnitt entbundenen Zivilisation. In Der Kaiserschnitt von Michale Stark. Urban & Fischer, München Jena, S 396–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson CM, Saunders NJ (1991) Mode of delivery after one caesarean section: audit of current practice in a health region. Br Med J 303:818–821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfannenstiel J (1897) Über die Vorteile des suprasymphysären Faszienquerschnitts für die gynäkologischen Koliotomien, zugleich ein Beitrag zu der Indikationsstellung der Operationswege. Samml Klein Vortr Gynäkol 68–98 (Klin Vortr NF Gynäk 1900; 97: 268)

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelan JP, Ahn MO, Diaz F et al. (1989) Twice a cesarean section, always a cesarean? Obstet Gynecol 73:161–165

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rageth Ch, Juzzi C, Grossenbacher H (1999) Delivery after previous caesarean: A risk evaluation. Obstet Gynecol 93:332–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology – RCOG (2002) Peritoneal Closure Guideline no. 15, July

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumler-Detzel P (2006) Wunsch-Sectio – aus juristischer Sicht. GesundheitsRecht 5:241–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlund GH (2008) Kommentar zur juristischen Problematik einer Wunschsectio. Gynäkol Praxis 32: 237–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Setayesh AR, Kholdebarin AR, Moghadam MS, Setayesh HR (2001) The Trendelenburg position increases the spread and accelerates the onset of epidural anesthesia for Cesarean section. Can J Anaesth 48(9): 890–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stark M (1993) Clinical evidence that suturing the peritoneum after laparotomy is unnecessary for healing. World J Surg 17(3): 419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stark M (1994) Technique of caesarean section: Misgav Ladach method. In: Popkin DR, Peddle LJ (eds) Women’s Health Today. Perspectives on current research and clinical practice. Proceedings of the XIV. World Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Montreal. Parthenon, New York, pp 81–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark M (2009) In the era of > non-closure of the peritoneum < how to open it? (Not every simple method is optimal, but every optimal method is simple). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88(1): 119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stark M, Finkel AR (1994) Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannestiel incision in caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 53:121–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stark M, Chavkin Y, Kupfersztain C, Guedj P, Finkel AR (1995) Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 48(3): 273–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker J (2009) Re-Sectio. In: Stark M (Hrsg) Der Kaiserschnitt. Urban & Fischer, München Jena, S 177–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacker J (2010) Kaiserschnitt vs. Natürliche Geburt. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd 70:840–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker J, Balde MD, Bastert (2005) Obstetrics unplugged, 2nd edn. Printhouse Heidelberg – Verlag Regionalkultur, Ubstadt-Weiher

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahab MA, Karantzis P, Eccersley PS, Russell IF, Thompson JW (1999) A randomised, controlled study of uterine exteriorisation and repair at caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(9): 913–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein D, Benshushan A, Tano V, Zilberstein R, Rojanski N (1996) Predictive score for vaginal birth after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:192–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson C, Enkin MW (2000) Manual removal of placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2: CD000130

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff F (2008) Aktuelles zur Wunschsectio. Juristische Konsequenzen. Gynäkol Praxis 32: 231–244

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NESA New European Surgical Academy, Karower Straße 11/214, 13125, Berlin

    Prof. h.c. Dr. med. Dr. h.c. Michael Stark

  2. Fürst-Stirum-Klinik (FSK) Bruchsal, Frauenklinik, Gutleutstraße 1–14, 76646, Bruchsal

    Prof. Dr. med. Jürgen Wacker

Authors
  1. Prof. h.c. Dr. med. Dr. h.c. Michael Stark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Dr. med. Jürgen Wacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fürst-Stirum-Klinik Bruchsal, Frauenklinik, Gutleutstraße 1–14, 76646, Bruchsal

    Jürgen Wacker

  2. Praxisklinik am Rosengarten, Augustaanlage 7–11, 68165, Mannheim

    Martin Sillem

  3. Praxisklinik am Rosengarten, Augustaanlage 7–11, 68165, Mannheim

    Gunther Bastert

  4. Universitätsklinikum Erlangen-Nürnberg, Frauenklinik, Universitätsstraße 21–23, 91054, Erlangen

    Matthias W. Beckmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stark, M., Wacker, J. (2013). Misgav-Ladach-Sectio (»der sanfte Kaiserschnitt«). In: Wacker, J., Sillem, M., Bastert, G., Beckmann, M. (eds) Therapiehandbuch Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30189-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30189-6_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30188-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30189-6

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation