Search

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term operative outcomes of three different surgical techniques for uterine incision closure during caesarean section (CS). This trial enrolled 120 patients scheduled for primary caesarean delivery. Patients were randomised into either classical double-layer uterine closure, purse-string double-layer uterine closure (Turan), or our new approach of uterine closure (double layer step up-step down technique). For short-term comparison, transvaginal ultrasonography was planned for all patients 6 weeks after surgery. Compared to group II and Group III, residual myometrial thickness was significantly thinner in group I ( p  < .001). The number of patients with uterine niche was 10 (50% of all scar defects) in group I whereas it was 4 (20%) in group II and 6 (30%) in group III. Operative time was significantly longer in group II ( p  < .001). This led to our conclusion that Turan technique and our new approach are associated with thicker myometrial thickness and less frequency of uterine scar defect than classical double-layer uterine incision closure; however, our approach takes less operative time. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04681378Impact statement What is already known on this subject ? Many variations in CS technique have been studied. For example, single-layer uterine incision closure has been compared to double-layer uterine incision closure. Purse string double layer (Turan) has been also compared to the traditional double-layer technique. Double layer unlocked closure has been shown to result in a thicker residual myometrium and as a consequence can possibly lead to the decrease of niche development after a CS compared to single-layer closure with lower frequency of uterine scar defect with Turan technique. What do the results of this study add? Here we introduce a new uterine closure technique, which we have named double-layer step up-step down technique, as an alternative method. With this technique, the uterine incision contract more than with the traditional double layer technique and has similar results to the Turan technique; however, our approach takes less operative time. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? These alternative techniques of uterine incision closure decrease the frequency of uterine niche that may be associated with many clinical problems such as ectopic pregnancy at the CS scar, placenta accreta, rupture of the uterus during a subsequent pregnancy. Future studies are needed to investigate the frequency of uterine rupture in a subsequent pregnancy following different uterine incision closure techniques.

Surgical scalpels are traditionally used for skin incisions during a Caesarean delivery; the great evolutions in electrosurgical devices bring an alternative method for skin incision by the usage of cutting diathermy. This was a prospective randomised comparative study conducted during the period from March 2016 to February 2017 on 200 patients, 100 patients had skin incisions using the surgical scalpel, while 100 patients had skin incisions with a diathermy, in order to judge the variations in the postoperative pain, the incision time, the incision blood loss, the operative time, the wound healing and the wound complications. We observed a significant difference between the two groups regarding the incision time (p < .001), incisional blood loss (p < .001), operative time (p < .001) and the postoperative pain (p < .001), where these parameters were less in the diathermy group. No significant difference observed between the two groups regarding the wound healing (p = .389) and wound complications (p = .470). We can conclude that the proper usage of diathermy in making the skin incision during a Caesarean section in this study achieved better results than the scalpel incision. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? Surgical scalpels are traditionally used in making the skin incisions during a Caesarean section; diathermy incisions, on the contrary, are less popular among the surgeons. It has been hypothesised that the application of extreme heat may result in a significant postoperative pain and poor wound healing. There has been a widespread use of diathermy for hemostasis but fear of production of large scars and improper tissue healing has restricted their usage in making skin incisions. What do the results of this study add? The use of diathermy for skin incisions in Caesarean section in this study was associated with a reduced incisional blood loss, incisional time, operative time and postoperative pain. It had no effect on wound closure and was not associated with any delay in wound healing. Also, the wound complications rate was equal in both types of incisions. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Most surgeons prefer the scalpel in making skin incision during a Caesarean section due to the fear of surgical site infection. Our findings proved different, we proved that cutting diathermy could be accepted as an alternative technique for making a skin incision without increased rates of wound infections. Also, the advantages of cutting diathermy will give benefits to both the patients and the surgeons.