Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of uterine exteriorization and in situ repair during cesarean sections

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the peri- and postoperative complication rates of two cesarean delivery techniques.

Methods

Medical records from 1,087 patients who had a cesarean delivery with regional anesthesia between 2008 and 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Seven hundred and thirty-two patients had an in situ uterine repair, and 355 patients had an exterior uterine repair. Patients who had chorioamnionitis, preeclampsia, a bleeding disorder, or abnormal placentation were excluded from the study. The following outcomes were compared between the two groups: mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative nausea, tachycardia, hypotension, hemoglobin level, hematocrit level, the time to the first recognized bowel movement, postoperative analgesic dose, nausea, length of hospital stay, surgical site infection rate and endometritis rate.

Results

No clinically significant differences were found between the exteriorization and in situ uterine repair groups for mean hematocrit differences, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative nausea, tachycardia, hypotension and postoperative analgesic doses. However, the mean operative time, time to the first recognized bowel movement, surgical site infection rate and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the in situ repair group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Although the techniques are similar in most scenarios, in situ uterine repair during cesarean sections appears to be more advantageous than exteriorization with respect to the mean operative time, time to the first recognized bowel movement, surgical site infection rate and length of hospital stay.

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

References

  1. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N (2008) Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 1: CD004662

  2. Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr G (2004) Extra-abdominal versus intraabdominal repair of the uterine incision at cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 4. Art No: CD000085

  3. Andersen ER, Gates S (2004) Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 4. Art No: CD004663

  4. Alderdice F, McKenna D, Dorman J (2004) Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2. Art No: CD003577

  5. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr G (2003) Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 4. Art No: CD000163

  6. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ (2007) Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 1. Art No: CD000163

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Magann EF, Dodson MK, Allbert JR, McCurdy CM, Martin RW, Morrison JC (1993) Blood loss at time of caeserean section by method of placental removal and exteriorization versus in situ repair of the uterine incision. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177:389–392

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Orji EO, Olaleye AO, Loto OM, Ogunniyi SO (2008) A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorization and non-exteriorization at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 48(6):570–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Coutinho IC, Ramos de Amorim MM, Katz L, Bandeira de Ferraz AA (2008) Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):639–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siddiqui M, Goldszmidt E, Fallah S, Kingdom J, Windrim R, Carvalho JC (2007) Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(3):570–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Magan EF, Washburne JF, Harris RL, Bass JD, Duff WP, Morrison JC (1995) Infectious morbidity, operative blood loss, and length of the operative procedure after cearean delivery by method of placental removal and site of uterine repair. J Am Coll Surg 181(6):517–520

    Google Scholar 

  14. The CORONIS Trial (2007) International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. The CORONIS Trial Colloborative Group. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 7:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Walsh CA, Walsh SR (2009) Extraabdominal vs intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:625.e1–625.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lowenwirth IP, Chi DS, Handwarker SM (1994) Non-fatal venous air embolism during cesarean section: a case report and review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv 49:72–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Edie-Osagie EC, Hopkins RE, Ogbo V, Lockhat-Clegg F, Ayeko M, Akpala WO, Mayers FN (1998) Uterine exteriorization at caeserean section: influence on maternal morbidity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:1070–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abd-El-Maeboud KH, Ibrahim MI, Shalaby DA, Fikry MF (2009) Gum chewing stimulates early return of bowel motility after caeserean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 116:1334–1339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brooten D, Roncoli M, Finkler S, Arnold L, Cohen A, Mennuti M (1994) A randomized trial of early hospital discharge and home follow-up of women having ceserean birth. Obstet Gynecol 84:832–838

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rize 82.Yil State Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology, 52100, Rize, Turkey

    Funda Gode

  2. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Dokuz Eylul University Medical School, Izmir, Turkey

    Recep Emre Okyay, Bahadir Saatli, Caglan Ertugrul, Serkan Guclu & Sabahattin Altunyurt

Authors
  1. Funda Gode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Recep Emre Okyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bahadir Saatli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caglan Ertugrul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Serkan Guclu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sabahattin Altunyurt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Funda Gode.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gode, F., Okyay, R.E., Saatli, B. et al. Comparison of uterine exteriorization and in situ repair during cesarean sections. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1541–1545 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2186-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2186-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation