Evaluation of the complications of the in situ versus uterine exteriorization repair of caesarean section uterine incision
Keywords:Caesarean section, Uterine incision, In-situ repair, Uterine exteriorization
Background: caesarean section is the most performed major operation around the world. In this study we aim to compare in situ repair of caesarean section uterine incision to repair with uterine exteriorization.
Methods: The study was conducted on 200 patients at El-Shatby maternity university hospital during the period from June 2019 to June 2020 and after ethical committee approval and obtaining an informed consent. All cases were 37 weeks gestation or more with singleton fetus prepared to have caesarean section. They were randomly allocated into 2 groups each of 100 participants: group A: with exteriorization repair of the uterus, group B: with in situ repair. After history taking, examination and laboratory investigations, elective caesarean section was done under spinal anesthesia. After delivery of the fetus and placenta, the uterus was repaired either in situ or after exteriorization followed by closure of the abdomen in layers. We assessed: primary outcome: blood loss. secondary outcome: nausea or vomiting, hypotension, operative time and duration of uterine repair, tachycardia, uterine contractility and hematoma formation. Post-operative pain, febrile illness, time of ambulation, time of return of bowel function were also assessed. Data were collected and submitted to statistical analysis.
Results: In situ repair had a statistically significant decrease in intra operative nausea, vomiting and tachycardia. Exteriorization resulted in significantly shorter duration of uterine repair; unlikely duration of the whole surgery was not statistically significant. Return of intestinal sounds was statistically significant in favour of in situ repair.
Conclusions: There is no definite or absolute privilege of in-situ repair versus exteriorization.
Madsen K, Grønbeck L, Rifbjerg Larsen C, Østergaard J, Bergholt T, Langhoff-Roos J et al. Educational strategies in performing cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:256-63.
Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Rouse DJ, Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence based surgery for caesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:294-306.
Steer PJ. Prevention and management of post-operative caesarean section. In: Jauniaux E, Grobman W (eds). A textbook of caesarean section complications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016;117-28.
Qin JB, Wang H, Sheng X, Xie Q, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in dichorionic twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1180-92.
Reddy UM, Rice MM, Grobman WA, Bailit JL, Wapner RJ, Varner MW et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Serious maternal complications after early preterm delivery (24-33 weeks’ gestation). Am J ObstetGynecol. 2015;213:538.
Her M, Ray C, Blondel B, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. The risk of pre-labor and intrapartum cesarean delivery among overweight and obese women: possible preventive actions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:41.
Jauniaux E, Jurkovic D. Long-term complications after caesarean section. In: Jauniaux E, Grobman W (eds). A textbook of caesarean section. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016;129-44.
Wang R, Mao Y, Zhang Z, Li Z, Chen J, Cen Y. Role of verapamil in preventing and treating hypertrophic scars and keloids. Int Wound J. 2016;13(4):461-8.
Moro F, Mavrelos D, Pateman K, Holland T, Hoo WL, Jurkovic D. Prevalence of pelvic adhesions on ultrasound examination in women with a history of cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:223-8.
Stark M, Hoyme UB, Stubert B, Kieback D, Renzo GC. Post-cesarean adhesions – are they a unique entity? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;21(8):513-6.
Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, Sawy E, Yazbek J, Lee C, Gonzalez J et al. Deficient lower-segment cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:72-7.
Baron J, Weintraub AY, Eshkoli T, Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E. The consequences of previous uterine scar dehiscence and cesarean delivery on subsequent births. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;126:120-2.
Jurkovic D, Knez J, Appiah A, Farahani L, Mavrelos D, Ross JA. Surgical treatment of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy: efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided suction curettage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(4):511-7.
Doganay M, Tonguc EA, Var T. Effects of method of repair on surgical outcome of cesarean delivery. J Gynecol Obstet. 2010;111:175-8.
Gode F, Okyay RE, Saatli B, Ertugrul C, Guclu S, Altunyurt S. Comparison of uterine exteriorization and in situ repair during cesarean sections. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285:154.
Das S, Dad P, Mahli A, Biswas S. Comparative study of uterine repair during cesarean section Intra-abdominal Vs exteriorization of uterus. ISORJDMS. 2015;14(1):5-8.
Zaphiratos V, George R, Boyd J, Habib A. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62:1209.
Nasir H, Imran R, Naz I, Saif N. Uterine Exteriorization compared with in-situ repair at Caesarean delivery. JRMC. 2011;15(2):110-2.
Orji EO, Olaleye AO, Loto OM, Ogunniyi SO. A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:570-4.
Ozbay K. Exteriorized versus in-situ repair of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):155-8.
Shuja A, Akhtar S, Khan S. Comparison of intra operative and postoperative complication of intra-abdominal versus extra-abdominal uterine repair at caesarean delivery. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2015;65(2):191-4.
Zafar B, Shehzad F, Naseem A, Safdar A. Exteriorization or in situ; Comparison of options for uterine repair at Caesarean section delivery. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2016;66(4):570-3.
Bushra Z, Farrukh S, Azra N, Aqeel S. Exteriorisation or in situ repair, comparison of options for uterine repair at Caesarean Delivery. PAFMJ. 2016;66(4):570-3.
Coutinho IC, Ramos Amorim MM, Katz L, Bandeira Ferraz AA. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:639-47.
Abdellah MS, Abbas AM, Ali MK, Mahmoud A, Abdullah SA. Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair: effect on intraoperative nausea and vomiting during repeat cesarean delivery-A randomized clinical trial. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2018;10(3):131-7.