Skip to main content

Re-laparotomy after cesarean section: operative complications in surgical delivery

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 278, pages 419–425 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To determine the risk factors causing re-laparotomy and the indications, management and outcomes of re-laparotomy after a cesarean section.

Methods

We had, during the study period of January 2002 to January 2007, 28,799 cesarean sections and 35 cases with re-laparotomy. We studied the patients’ age, parity, indications for cesarean section and indications for re-laparotomy, time interval after cesarean section to reopening of the abdomen, type of surgery, need for blood transfusion and span of hospital stay.

Results

The incidence of re-laparotomy was 0.12%. Cases with placental abruption and previous cesarean ≥3 had a higher risk for re-laparotomy. Procedures that were performed at re-laparotomy were drainage and resuturing of hematomas (n = 8), resuturing of uterus and securing hemostasis with stitches (n = 10), bladder repair (n = 1), herniation repair (n = 1), total abdominal hysterectomy (n = 2), subtotal abdominal hysterectomy (n = 5), and draining and resuturing of broad ligament, parametrium, abdominal wound, and cutaneus and subcutaneous tissue due to infection and abscess formation (n = 8). Two cases required admission into the intensive care unit. We had one case with maternal mortality. Majority of the complications were revealed at an early period and these were hemorrhagic cases mostly.

Conclusion

Although the rate of re-laparotomy after cesarean section is low, several actions must be undertaken to decrease the need for re-laparotomy. In particular, cases with placental abruption and previous cesarean ≥3 are with higher risk for re-laparotomy and have a 15-fold risk for re-laparotomy after cesarean section.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Greenhill JP (1995) Obstetrics, 11th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 986–1033

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jackson NV, Irvine LM (1998) The influence of maternal request on elective cesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynaecol 18:115–119

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Landon MB (2007) Cesarean delivery. Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JH (eds) 5th edition. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 486–521

  4. Rubin GL, Peterson HB, Robert RW, McCarthy BJ, Terry JS (1981) Maternal death after cesarean section in Georgia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 139:681–685

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zelop C, Heffner LJ (2004) The downside of cesarean delivery: short- and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynecol 47:386–393

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mayer HG, Limberger M (1975) Early abdominal second interventions following gynecologic surgery. Zentralbl Gynakol 97:692–695

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Saffah SE (2005) Re-laparotomy after cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 88:253–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lurie S, Sadan O, Golan A (2007) Re-laparotomy after cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 134:184–187

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Hankins GDV, Meyers JA, Houser FM (2007) Variations in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:526.e1–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ribeiro VS, Figueiredo FP, Silva AA, Bettiol H, Batista RF, Coimbra LC, Lamy ZC, Barbieri MA (2007) Why are the rates of cesarean section in Brazil higher in more developed cities than in less developed ones? Braz J Med Biol Res 40:1211–1220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Abenhaim HA, Benjamin A, Koby RD, Kinch RA, Kramer MS (2007) Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients’ own obstetricians. CMAJ 177:352–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leung GM, Ho LM, Tin KY, Schooling CM, Lam TH (2007) Health care consequences of cesarean birth during the first 18 months of life. Epidemiology 18:479–484

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lehmann S, Børdahl PE, Rasmussen SA, Irgens LM (2007) Norwegian midwives and doctors have increased cesarean section rates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86:1087–1089

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Anonymous (1985) Appropiate technology for birth. Lancet 2:436–437

    Google Scholar 

  15. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S (2006) Births: final data for 2004. Natl Vital Stat Rep 55:1–101

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cahill AG, Macones GA (2007) Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: evidence-based practice. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 50:518–525

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ophir E, Strulov A, Solt I, Michlin R, Buryanov I, Bornstein J (2007) Delivery mode and maternal rehospitalization. Arch Gynecol Obstet. [Epub ahead of print]

  18. Simoes E, Kunz S, Bosing-Schwenkglenks M, Schmahl FW (2005) Association between method of delivery, puerperal complication rate and postpartum hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 272:43–47

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L (2005) Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 62:220–225

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP (2005) Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1607–1617

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis JD (1999) Management of injuries of the urinary and gastrointestinal tract during cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 26:469–480

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Opøien HK, Valbø A, Grinde-Andersen A, Walberg M (2007) Post-cesarean surgical site infections according to CDC standards: rates and risk factors. A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86(9):1097–1102

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nadisauskiene RJ, Kliucinskas M, Vitkauskiene A, Minkauskiene M, Vaitkiene D (2007) Puerperal Clostridium perfringens sepsis in a patient with granulocytopenia. Gynecol Obstet Invest 65:32–34

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Montavon C, Krause E, Holzgreve W, Hosli I (2005) Uterine gas gangrene through Clostridium perfringens sepsis after uterus rupture postpartum (in German). Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 209:167–172

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Halpin TF, Molinari JA (2002) Diagnosis and management of Clostridium perfringens sepsis and uterine gas gangrene. Obstet Gynecol Surv 57:53–57

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alchalabi HA, Amarin ZO, Badria LF, Zayed FF (2007) Does the number of previous caesarean deliveries affect maternal outcome and complication rates? East Mediterr Health J 13:544–550

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul Bakirkoy Maternity and Children Diseases Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ali Gedikbasi, Alpaslan Akyol, Emel Asar, Remzi Uncu, Akif Sargin & Yavuz Ceylan

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul Metropolitan Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Banu Bingol

  3. Atakoy 11. Kisim, Lale Apt. D.40, 34710, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ali Gedikbasi

Authors
  1. Ali Gedikbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alpaslan Akyol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emel Asar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Banu Bingol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Remzi Uncu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Akif Sargin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yavuz Ceylan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Gedikbasi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gedikbasi, A., Akyol, A., Asar, E. et al. Re-laparotomy after cesarean section: operative complications in surgical delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 278, 419–425 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0604-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0604-9

Keywords

  • Re-laparotomy after cesarean section
  • Placental abruption
  • Previous cesarean ≥3