Closure of the uterine incision with one or two layers after caesarean section: a randomized controlled study in sheep

References

• Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). CIHI health indicator reports. Health System Performance. Available from http://secure.cihi.ca/hireports/SearchServlet: 2008 [last accessed Jun 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, et al. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. Br Med J 2004;329:19–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. number 155 (replaces guideline number 147), February 2005. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89:319–31
   Google Scholar
• Shipp TD, Zelop C, Repke JT, et al. The association of maternal age and symptomatic uterine rupture during a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:585–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:872–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, Gauthier RJ. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:1199–202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:175–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esposito MA, Menihan CA, Malee MP. Association of interpregnancy interval with uterine scar failure in labor: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1180–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:43–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, et al. Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006;19:639–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;189:925–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1326–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:16–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enkin MW, Wilkinson CS. Single versus two layer suturing for closing the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;147:3
   Google Scholar
• Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:1--37
   Google Scholar
• Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Yu C, et al. The effect of dystocia and previous cesarean uterine scar on the tensile properties of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:873–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollio F, Staibano S, Mascolo M, et al. Uterine dehiscence in term pregnant patients with one previous cesarean delivery: growth factor immunoexpression and collagen content in the scarred lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:527–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Lieto A, Pollio F, De Falco M, et al. Collagen content and growth factor immunoexpression in uterine lower segment of type IA osteogenesis imperfecta: relationship with recurrent uterine rupture in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:594–600
   Google Scholar
• Morris H. Surgical pathology of the lower uterine segment caesarean section scar: is the scar a source of clinical symptoms? Int J Gynecol Pathol 1995;14:16–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poidevin LO. Histopathology of caesarean section wounds: an experimental study. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1961;68:1025–9
   Google Scholar
• Gul A, Simsek Y, Ugras S, Gul T. Transverse uterine incision non-closure versus closure: an experimental study in sheep. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000;79:813–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamar BD, Saber SB, Cackovic M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:808–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, et al. Myometrial wound healing post-cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol 2010;177:197–207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010;117:1366–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group. The CORONIS trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregn Childbirth 2007;7:1--43
   Google Scholar