DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20202726

Effectiveness of modified mattress suture closing technique over conventional lower segment caesarean section closing technique

C. P. Singh, Devdatt Laxman Pitale

Abstract


Background: The objective of this study was to compare the thickness of the scar and relative thinning of the uterine

wall following conventional LSCS closing technique versus new closing technique (modified mattress Suture) and any additional surgical procedure in each group.

Methods: A total of sixty patients undergoing primary caesarean for obstetric indications and who were willing for the study were included. In 30 patients uterus was closed by conventional double layer technique (the first layer is suturing with absorbable suture in a continuous running fashion. After first layer is complete, a second continuous stitch is used to invert the first layer, inverting stitch may be horizontal or vertical using same suturing material) and in 30 patient uterus was closed by new modified mattress technique. In both groups same suture material (vicryl 1-0) was used. Measurement of the thickness of scar site and corresponding posterior wall thickness was done following 6 months of caesarean section.

Results: The possible parameters of better technique i.e., the mean scar thickness is more and relative as well as percentage thinning is less with this new technique of uterine closure although statistically not significant. 

Conclusions: Modified mattress suture technique is a single step procedure and gives the feel of double layer uterine closure. Hence the time taken, material. Used and the cost involved will be less along with excellent hemostasis.


Keywords


Closure techniques, Lower segment caesarean section, Scar thickness, Trial of labor after caesarean

Full Text:

PDF

References


Babu KM, Magon N. Uterine closure in cesarean delivery: A new technique. North Am J Med Sct. 2012;4:358-61.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: vaginal birth after previous caesarean delivery. Practice Bulletin No. 54; 2004.

Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: The next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:16.

Tucker JM, Hauth JC, Hodgkins P, Owen J, Winkler CL. Trial of labor after a one-or two-layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:545.

Durnwald C, Mercer B. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:925.

Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326.

Vidaeff AC, Lucas MJ. Impact of single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:602.

Sharma C, Surya M, Soni A, Soni PK, Verma A, Verma S. Sonographic prediction of scar dehiscence in women with previous cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015;65(2):97-103.

Rozenberg P, Gopffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defect of scarred uterus. Lancet. 1996;347:281-4.

Jastro N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systemic review. J Obstet Gynacol Can. 2010;32:321-7.

Gizzo S, Zambon A, Saccardi C, Patrelli TS, Di Gangi S, Carrozzini M, et al. Effective anatomical and functional status of the lower segment at term; estimating the risk of uterine dehiscence by ultrasound. Fertil Sterli. 2013;92(2):496-501.