Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 279, Issue 5, pp 673–675 | Cite as

Superficial fascial system repair: an abdominoplasty technique to reduce local complications after caesarean delivery

  • Sammy Al-BennaEmail author
  • Yazan Al-Ajam
  • Elias Tzakas
Original Article

Abstract

Abdominal incision complications are a major source of morbidity after caesarean delivery. Repair of the superficial fascial system may avert local complications after caesarean delivery by minimising tension to the skin and increasing the initial biomechanical strength of wound which has the potential to decrease early wound dehiscence and as a by-product correct suprapubic bulging.

Keywords

Superficial fascial system Caesarean section Abdominoplasty 

References

  1. 1.
    Vermillion ST, Lamoutte C, Soper DE et al (2000) Wound infection after cesarean: effect of subcutaneous tissue thickness. Obstet Gynecol 95:923–926. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00642-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Owen J, Andrews WW (1994) Wound complications after cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 37:842–855. doi: 10.1097/00003081-199412000-00009 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myles TD, Gooch J, Santolaya J (2002) Obesity as an independent risk factor for infectious morbidity in patients who undergo cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 100:959–964. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02323-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J et al (1995) Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol 85:412–416. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00427-F PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chelmow D, Huang E, Strohbehn K (2002) Closure of the subcutaneous dead space and wound disruption after cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 11:403–408. doi: 10.1080/713605560 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manann EF, Chauhan SP, Rodts-Palenik S et al (2002) Subcutaneous stitch closure versus subcutaneous drain to prevent wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1119–1123. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.123823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martens MG, Kolrud BL, Faro S et al (1995) Development of wound infection or separation after cesarean delivery; prospective evaluation of 2, 431 cases. J Reprod Med 40:171–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tran TS, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V et al (2000) Risk factors for post cesarean surgical site infection. Obstet Gynecol 95:367–371. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00540-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cetin A, Cetin M (1997) Superficial wound disruption after cesarean delivery: effect of depth and closure of subcutaneous tissue. Int J Gynecol Obstet 57:17–21. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(97)02836-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Killian CA, Graffunder EM, Vinciguerra TJ et al (2001) Risk factors for surgical-site infections following cesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 22:613–617. doi: 10.1086/501831 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pelle H, Jepsen O, Larsen S et al (1986) Wound infection after cesarean section. Infect Control 7:456–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moir-Bussy BR, Hutton RM, Thompson JR (1984) Wound infection after caesarean section. J Hosp Infect 5:359–370. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(84)90003-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts S, Maccato M, Faro S et al (1993) The microbiology of post-cesarean wound morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 81:383–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mallucci P, Pacifico MD, Waterhouse N, Sabbagh W (2007) The differential fascial glide: a technical refinement in abdominoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60(8):929–933. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.10.019 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teimourian B, Gotkin RH (1989) Contouring of the midtrunk in overweight patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 13:145–153. doi: 10.1007/BF01570211 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lockwood TE (1991) Superficial fascial system (SFS) of the trunk and extremities: a new concept. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1009–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song AY, Askari M, Azemi E, Alber S, Hurwitz DJ, Marra KG et al (2006) Biomechanical properties of the superficial fascial system. Aesthetic Surg J 26:395–403. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollock T, Pollock H (2004) Progressive tension sutures in abdominoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 31:583–589. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2004.03.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lockwood TE (1993) Lower body lift with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:1112–1122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lockwood TE (1995) High-lateral-tension abdominoplasty with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:603–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lockwood TE (2004) Maximizing aesthetics in lateral-tension abdominoplasty and body lifts. Clin Plast Surg 31:523–537. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2004.04.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lockwood TE (1988) Fascial anchoring technique in medial thigh lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 82:299–304. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198808000-00015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lockwood TE (1995) Brachioplasty with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:912–920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lockwood TE (1999) Reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:1411–1420. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199904050-00009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Markman B, Barton F Jr (1987) Anatomy of the subcutaneous tissue of the trunk and lower extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 80:248–254. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198708000-00015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rohrich RJ, Smith PD, Marcantonio DR, Kenkel JM (2001) The zones of adherence: role in minimizing and preventing contour deformities in liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1562–1569. doi: 10.1097/00006534-200105000-00043 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Edwards C, Marks R (1995) Evaluation of biomechanical properties of human skin. Clin Dermatol 13:375–380. doi: 10.1016/0738-081X(95)00078-T PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySt Bartholomew’s HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity Hospital of North StaffordshireStoke-on-TrentUK

Personalised recommendations