• K Ozbay.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Hospital of Ahlat, Bitlis, Turkey. mdkorayozbay@yahoo.com
• Clin Exp Obstet Gyn. 2011 Jan 1; 38 (2): 155-8.

Purpose Of InvestigationTo compare advantages and disadvantages of exteriorized and in situ repair techniques of uterine incision during cesarean section.MethodsA total of 338 patients delivered by cesarean section were included in the study. Patients were randomized according to the location of uterine incision repair; the uterus was exteriorized (n = 171) or not (in situ repair group) (n = 167) during cesarean section. Two groups were compared in terms of blood loss, operation time, temperature patterns, analgesic dosage, length of hospital stay, incidence of nausea and vomiting.ResultsThere was no significant difference in postoperative analgesic dosage, temperature patterns, drops in hemoglobin or hematocrit levels and in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting between the two groups. Operation time and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the in situ repair group, when it was compared to those of which the uterus was exteriorized (30.64 +/- 8.65 vs 33.02 +/- 9.54 min., p = 0.011 and 2.23 +/- 0.49 vs 2.45 +/- 0.94 days, p = 0.045).ConclusionsExteriorized and in situ repair of uterine incisions have similar effects on blood loss, temperature patterns, postoperative analgesic dosage and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although both methods of uterine incision repair are valid options during surgery, cesarean sections took less time and length of hospital stay was shorter when uterine incision was repaired in situ.

10 keywords...

hide…