Oviedo OJG, Ibarrola BAE, Reyes CH, Alfaro AJ, García LF

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 24-28
PDF size: 58.92 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The cesarean section operation is the most frequently performed surgery in obstetrics and has not had any significant change in its technique during the last one hundred years. Design: A comparative clinical study was done between a simplified technique and the conventional one. The study was an observational retrospective one, considering a group of patients from a specific OB-GYN practice group, including 150 patients for each technique. Results: Using simplified technique: surgical time was shorter (20-30 minutes); using conventional technique: surgical time was longer (50-60 minutes); the analgesic use postoperatively was diminished in the simplified technique group; oral intake was initiated earlier in the simplified technique group (6-8 hours-op vs 10-12 hours post-op); ambulation started earlier in the simplified technique group (6-8 hours post-op vs 10-12 hours post-op). In reoperated patients, who have had simplified technique in a previous procedure, no urinary bladder elevation to the uterine corpus was observed. No adhesions were seen as well. No infections were registered post operatively in either group. Conclusion: The cesarean section simplified technique is a safe procedure, fast and easy to perform, that decreases the postoperative pain and decreases the appearance of postoperative paralytic ileum.

REFERENCES

1. Pfannenstiel J. On the advantages of a transverse cut of the fascia above the symphysis for gynecological laparotomies, and advice on surgical methods and indications. Samml Klin Vortr Gynäkol (neue Folge) 1897: 68-74.

2. Joel-Cohen S. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. New techniques based on time and motion studies. London: Heinemann, 1972: 170.

3. Pelosi Marco A. Simplified cesarean section. Contemporary OB/GYN, December 1995: 89-100.

4. Stark M. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Internal J Gyn Obst 1995: 273-276.

5. Stark M, Finkel AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 53: 121-122.

6. Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 167(4): Part 1, 1108-1101.

7. Jelsema RD, Wittingen JA, Kenneth J, Vander Kolk. Continuous, nonlocking, single-layer repair of the low transverse uterine incision. J Reprod Med 1993: 393-396.

8. Hull DB, Varner MW. A randomized study of closure of the peritoneum at cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1991: 77-79.

9. Marcello Pietrantoni and cols. Peritoneal closure or non closure at cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77.

10. Ellis H, Heddle R. Does the peritoneum need to be closed at laparotomy? Br J Surg 1977; 64: 733-737.

11. Robbins GF, Brunchwig A, Foote FW. Deperitonealization: Clinical and experimental observations. Ann Surg 1949; 130: 466-472.

12. Elkins TE, Stovall TG, Warren J, Ling FW, Meyer NL. A histologic evaluation of peritoneal injury and repair: Implications for adhesions formation. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 225-228.

13. Calleja CVJ y col. Cesárea. Histerorrafia en un plano. Ginec Obst Mex 1994; 62: 304.

14. Tulandi T, Hum HS, Gelfand MM. Closure of laparotomy incisions with or without suturing and second-look laparoscopy. Am Obst Gynecol 1998; 158: 536-537.

15. Shelley J, Chapman, John Owen, & John C. Hauth. One- versus two- Layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997: 16-18.