• Funda Gode, Recep Emre Okyay, Bahadir Saatli, Caglan Ertugrul, Serkan Guclu, and Sabahattin Altunyurt.
• Rize 82.Yil State Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology, 52100 Rize, Turkey. funda.gode@gmail.com
• Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012 Jun 1; 285 (6): 1541-5.

PurposeTo compare the peri- and postoperative complication rates of two cesarean delivery techniques.MethodsMedical 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.ResultsNo 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).ConclusionAlthough 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.

35 keywords...

hide…