• Waleed El-Khayat, Mohamed Elsharkawi, and Amr Hassan.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Electronic address: waleed_elkhyat@yahoo.com.
• Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Nov 1;127(2):163-6.

ObjectiveTo compare extra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery with in situ repair.MethodsThe present study was a double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted at a university hospital in Egypt during 2012-2013, and included women with an indication for cesarean delivery. Extra-abdominal repair was used in group 1 (n=500) and in situ repair in group 2 (n=500). The primary outcome measure was the surgery duration.ResultsSurgery duration was significantly longer in group 1 than group 2 (49.9±2.3 minutes vs 39.9±1.8 minutes; P<0.001). More patients in group 1 than in group 2 had postoperative moderate-to-severe pain (165 [33.0%] vs 115 [23.0%]; P=0.001) and needed additional postoperative analgesia (100 [20.0%] vs 50 [10.0%]; P<0.001). Moreover, mean time to bowel movement was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (17.0±2.7 hours vs 14.0±1.9 hours; P<0.001).ConclusionIn situ uterine closure is more advantageous than extra-abdominal repair in terms of surgery duration, postoperative pain and need for additional analgesia, and return of bowel movement. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01723605.Copyright © 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

13 keywords...

hide…