Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the Intra-abdominal and Extra-abdominal Techniques in the Repair of Cesarean Section Incision

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal techniques in the repair of uterine incisions in cesarean delivery is the objective of this research. In this study, we analyzed the data of patients that underwent a cesarean section in Viranşehir State Hospital, a secondary care center. The present retrospective study included a total of 574 patients, of whom 288 underwent intra-abdominal uterine repair and 286 underwent extra-abdominal uterine repair in cesarean delivery. The groups were compared in terms of clinical characteristics, operation time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. In patients who underwent extra-abdominal uterine repair, the operation time was significantly shorter than those who underwent intra-abdominal uterine repair (44.8 ± 11.8 and 51.4 ± 12.6 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Another significant finding was that blood loss was less in patients who underwent extra-abdominal uterine repair than in patients who underwent intra-abdominal uterine repair (1.3 ± 0.8 g/dl and 1.5 ± 0.9 g/dl, respectively; p = 0.002). Other parameters (age, blood transfusion requirement, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels, length of hospital stay, and bowel movements) were statistically similar in the two groups. Our study showed that extra-abdominal repair shortened the operation time and less blood loss. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to conclude the superiority of the two techniques over each other.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data and material are available.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al. Williams obstetrics. 22nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, et al. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):308.e1-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392:1341–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of cesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392:1349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hacettepe University, Institute of Population Studies (HIPS). 2018 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. Ankara, Turkey: HIPS, T.R. Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TÜBİTAK; 2019.

  6. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1607–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P, et al. Surgical techniques used during cesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;102:120–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr G. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2004(4):CD000085. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000085.pub2

  9. Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Extraabdominal vs intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. The CORONIS Trial. International study of cesarean section surgical techniques: a randomized fractional, factorial trial. The CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007;7:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Rouse DJ, et al. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(4):294–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):234–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60441-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baksu A, Kalan A, Ozkan A, et al. The effect of placental removal method and site of uterine repair on postcesarean endometritis and operative blood loss. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(3):266–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Coutinho IC, Ramos de Amorim MM, Katz L, et al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):639–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gode F, Okyay RE, Saatli B, et al. Comparison of uterine exteriorization and in situ repair during cesarean sections. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1541–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Doğanay M, Tonguc EA, Var T. Effects of method of uterine repair on surgical outcome of cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;111:175–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Siddiqui M, Goldszmidt E, Fallah S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(3):570–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Magann EF, Dodson MK, Allbert JR, et al. Blood loss at time of cesarean section by method of placental removal and exteriorization versus in situ repair of the uterine incision. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177(4):389–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wahab MA, Karantzis P, Eccersley PS, et al. A randomized, controlled study of uterine exteriorization and repair at cesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:913–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hershey DW, Quilligan EJ. Extraabdominal uterine exteriorization at cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1978;52(2):189–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abd-El-Maeboud KH, Ibrahim MI, Shalaby DA, et al. Gum chewing stimulates early return of bowel motility after caesarian section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;116:1334–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdellah MS, Abbas AM, Ali MK, et al. Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair: effect on intraoperative nausea and vomiting during repeat cesarean delivery - a randomized clinical trial. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2018;10(3):131–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mireault D, Loubert C, Drolet P, et al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair of hysterotomy after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(5):1145–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the healthcare professionals who worked at our clinic and helped us complete this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Turkish Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, 1604 Street, No: 9, Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Nihat Farisoğullari, Ramazan Denizli & Bedri Sakcak

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

    Nayif Çiçekli

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Viranşehir State Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Turkey

    Zeki Doğan

Authors
  1. Nihat Farisoğullari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramazan Denizli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bedri Sakcak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nayif Çiçekli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zeki Doğan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors have read and approved the final article. All the authors contributed to the following sections of the article and fulfilled the conditions for being an article writer. Bedri Sakcak: data collection and formal analysis. Nayif Çiçekli: resources and supervision. Nihat Farisoğulları: manuscript writing, data collection, project development, and study concept. Ramazan Denizli: study concept and software. Zeki Doğan: manuscript editing and supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nihat Farisoğullari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Approval for the study was obtained from the Harran University ethics committee (HRU/21.02.17).

Consent to Participate

Written and verbal consents were obtained from the patients.

Consent for Publication

Oral consent was given by the patients.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Surgery

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farisoğullari, N., Denizli, R., Sakcak, B. et al. Comparison of the Intra-abdominal and Extra-abdominal Techniques in the Repair of Cesarean Section Incision. SN Compr. Clin. Med. 5, 61 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-023-01408-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-023-01408-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation