The purpose of this study was to compare 2 methods of expansion of the uterine incision at the time of cesarean delivery. Women who underwent a low-segment transverse cesarean delivery were assigned randomly to have the blunt expansion of the uterine incision by the physician separating the fingers either in a transversal direction or in a cephalad-caudad direction. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of unintended extensions. The transversal (n = 406) and cephalad-caudad (n = 405) expansion groups were similar with regard to patient characteristics, indication to surgery, type of anesthesia, and proportion of emergency procedures. No difference in the need for transfusions (0.7% vs 0.7%; P = 1.0) or estimated blood loss (440 +/- 341 vs 398 +/- 242 mL; P = .09) was noted. The incidence of unintended extension (7.4% vs 3.7%; P = .03) and blood loss of >1500 mL (2.0% vs 0.2%; P = .04) was significantly higher in the transversal expansion group, compared with the cephalad-caudad group. Transversal expansion was an independent contributor to unintended extension and blood loss of >1500 mL. Because it is associated with less risk of unintended extension and excessive blood loss, expansion of the uterine incision with a cephalad-caudad traction should be preferred to transversal expansion when a cesarean delivery is performed.

Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques

CROMI, ANTONELLA;GHEZZI, FABIO;SIESTO, GABRIELE;BOLIS, PIER FRANCESCO
2008

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare 2 methods of expansion of the uterine incision at the time of cesarean delivery. Women who underwent a low-segment transverse cesarean delivery were assigned randomly to have the blunt expansion of the uterine incision by the physician separating the fingers either in a transversal direction or in a cephalad-caudad direction. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of unintended extensions. The transversal (n = 406) and cephalad-caudad (n = 405) expansion groups were similar with regard to patient characteristics, indication to surgery, type of anesthesia, and proportion of emergency procedures. No difference in the need for transfusions (0.7% vs 0.7%; P = 1.0) or estimated blood loss (440 +/- 341 vs 398 +/- 242 mL; P = .09) was noted. The incidence of unintended extension (7.4% vs 3.7%; P = .03) and blood loss of >1500 mL (2.0% vs 0.2%; P = .04) was significantly higher in the transversal expansion group, compared with the cephalad-caudad group. Transversal expansion was an independent contributor to unintended extension and blood loss of >1500 mL. Because it is associated with less risk of unintended extension and excessive blood loss, expansion of the uterine incision with a cephalad-caudad traction should be preferred to transversal expansion when a cesarean delivery is performed.
bleeding; cesarean delivery; expansion of uterine incision; extension; surgical technique
Cromi, Antonella; Ghezzi, Fabio; E., Di Naro; Siesto, Gabriele; G., Loverro; Bolis, PIER FRANCESCO
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Blunt expansion TC.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 368.37 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
368.37 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11383/1708530
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 39
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 27
social impact