medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2016, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2016; 84 (08)

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes Caesarean techniques: modified Misgav- Ladach, Pfannenstiel-Kerr and Kerr-half infraumbilical

Cardona-Osuna ME, Ávila-Vergara MA, Peraza-Garay F, Meneses-Valderrama V, Flores-Pompa E, Corrales-López A

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 514-522
PDF size: 321.74 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: In Mexico, the prevalence of caesarean section is 40.9% in the health sector, the techniques used are the traditional Pfannenstiel-Kerr and Kerr-half infraumbilical and little experience with this new technique Misgav-Ladach modified.
Objetive: To compare pregnancy outcomes (surgical and fetal extraction time, bleeding, postoperative pain, surgical wound infection, maternal and fetal death) caesarean section techniques modified Misgav-Ladach, Pfannenstiel-Kerr and infraumbilical.
Material and Methods: Clinical trial in primiparous women with term pregnancy treated at the Medical Unit of High Specialty 23 of the Mexican Social Security Institute, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Misgav-Ladach caesarean Caesarean modified and Kerr, the latter subdivided into two groups: infraumbilical Pfannenstiel incision and incision half-Kerr two groups patients were randomized.
Results: 137 gilts were studied, with term pregnancy and BMI between 19 and 24.9 kg / m2. Caesarean modified Misgav-Ladach 68 patients and 69 classical Kerr (35 Pfannenstiel-Kerr and 34 infraumbilical) was performed. The surgical time in minutes was lower with modified Misgav-Ladach: 27.8 ± 8.0, Pfannenstiel-Kerr recorded 51.7 ± 12.1 and 12.0 ± infraumbilical media48.3 (p = 0.000). The time in seconds fetal extraction was lower in modified Misgav-Ladach: 96.2 ± 68.3, 474.9 ± Pfannenstiel-Kerr 294.1 and 423.2 ± 398.6 infraumbilical (p = 0.000). The trasoperatory milliliters bleeding was lower with modified Misgav-Ladach: 298.5 ± 57.3, 354.3 ± Pfannenstiel-Kerr 98.0 and 355.9 ± 110.6 infraumbilical (p = 0.001). Postoperative pain assessed with the visual analog scale in the first 24 hours was lower with modified Misgav-Ladach: 4.4 ± 1.9, 5.7 ± Pfannenstiel-Kerr and IK 2.1 6.1 ± 2.0 (p = 0.000). The start of the oral route and ambulation was soon comparing modified Misgav-Ladach against Pfannenstiel-Kerr and Kerr-infraumbilical (p = 0.000). The prevalence of fever was 5.9% with modified Misgav-Ladach, 5.9% Pfannenstiel-Kerr and 32.4% with infraumbilical-Kerr (p = 001). The discharge in hours was modified Misgav-Ladach ± 45.8 to 12.1 h, Pfannenstiel-Kerr 49.3 ± 12.3 h and 58.5 infraumbilical-Kerr ± 21.5 h (p = .000). In this study no maternal or fetal deaths were observed.
Conclusions: Surgical time, bleeding, postoperative pain, better postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays and less infection were significantly lower than with conventional techniques of caesarean section or infraumbilical-Kerr technique.


REFERENCES

  1. Puentes-Rosas E, Gómez-Dantés O, Garrido-Latorre F. Las cesáreas en México: tendencias, niveles y factores asociados. Salud Publica Mex 2004;46:16-22.

  2. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Ginecol 2009;201:431-444.

  3. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM for the WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG 2016;123:667-670.

  4. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;326:436- 437.

  5. Clark SL, Miller DD, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Frye DK, Meyers JA.. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:156. e1-156.e4.

  6. NIH State-of-the-Science. Conference Statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2006;23:1-29.

  7. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS One 2016; 11(2):e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0148343.

  8. Suárez-López L, Campero L, De la Vara-Salazar E, Rivera- Rivera L, Hernández-Serrato MI, Walker D, Lazcano-Ponce E. Características sociodemográficas y reproductivas asociadas con el aumento de cesáreas en México. Salud Publica Mex 2013;55 supl 2:S225-S234.

  9. Spong CY. Prevention of the first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2015;42: 377–380.

  10. Sardiñas-Ramírez A. La operación cesárea y la obstetricia de hoy. Ginec Obstet Mex 2005;73:155-159.

  11. Kerr JM. The technique of cesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1926;12:729–734..

  12. NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean section. Clinical guideline. Published: 23 November 2011. nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132.

  13. Vitale SG, Marilli I, Cignini P, Padula F, D'Emidio L, Mangiafico L, Rapisarda AM, Gulino FA, Cianci S, Biondi A, Giorlandino C. Comparison between modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr techniques for cesarean section: review of literature. J Prenat Med 2014;8:36-41.

  14. Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Rouse DJ, Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidence-based surgery for casarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:294-306.

  15. Anderson ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD004663.

  16. Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, Grivell RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;7:CD004732.

  17. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Serio G, Tinelli R, Casciaro S, Cavallotti C. Comparison between the use of the Joel-Cohen incision and its modification during Stark's cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2007;10:757- 761.

  18. Tamayo-Gutiérrez JG, Sereno-Coló JA, Huape-Arreola MS. Comparación entre cesárea Misgav-Ladach y cesárea tradicional. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008;76:75-80.

  19. Olofsson P. Opening of the abdomen ad modum Joel Cohen, Joel-Cohen, Joel Joel-Cohen, or just Cohen?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:224-225.

  20. Stark M, Chavkin Y, Kupfersztain C, Guedj P, Finkel AR. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995;48:273-276.

  21. Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. Williams Obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGrawHill;2001;537-563.

  22. Mattingly RF, Thompson JD.Te Linde ́s Operative Gynecology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Company, 1985;157-181.

  23. Gallego JI, Rodríguez de la Torre MR, Vázquez-Gue- rrero JC, Gil M. Estimation of the prevalence and severity of postoperative pain and relation with patient satisfaction. Rev Soc Esp Dolor 2004; 11: 197-202.

  24. Romero J, Gálvez R, Ruiz S. ¿Se sostiene la Escalera Analgésica de la OMS? Rev. Soc. Esp. Dolor 2008; 1: 1-4.

  25. Hudić I, Fatusić Z, Kamerić L, Misić M, Serak I, Latifagić A. Vaginal delivery after Misgav-Ladach cesarean section-is the risk of uterine rupture acceptable? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:1156-1159.

  26. Cohen B, Atkins M. Brief history of vaginal birth after cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001;44:604- 608.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com