Advanced search
Publication Cover
The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 35, 2022 - Issue 3
Submit an article Journal homepage
278
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair in primary and repeat cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial

Aya Mohr-Sassona Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;b Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9818-3041
ORCID Icon,
Elias Castela Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;b Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Irina Luriea Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
Sigal Heifetza Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;b Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Salim Keesa Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;b Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
&
Eyal Sivana Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel;b Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Pages 433-438 | Received 08 Nov 2019, Accepted 21 Jan 2020, Published online: 02 Feb 2020

References

  • Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology. 2007;18(4):485–486.
  • Tollånes MC. Increased rate of caesarean sections – causes and consequences. Tidsskriftet. 2009;129(13):1329–1331.
  • Shabila NP. Rates and trends in cesarean sections between 2008 and 2012 in Iraq. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):22.
  • Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, et al. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gy. 2016;123(5):667–670.
  • Stanton CK, Holtz SA. Levels and trends in cesarean birth in the developing world. Stud Fam Plann. 2006;37(1):41–48.
  • Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: the paradox. Lancet. 2006;368(9546):1472–1473.
  • Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263–2270.
  • Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, et al. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7(7):CD004732.
  • Ozbay K. Exteriorized versus in-situ repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):155–158.
  • Siddiqui M, Goldszmidt E, Fallah S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(3):570–575.
  • Gode F, Okyay RE, Saatli B, et al. Comparison of uterine exteriorization and in situ repair during cesarean sections. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1541–1545.
  • Zaphiratos V, George RB, Boyd JC, et al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth. 2015;62(11):1209–1220.
  • Haefeli M, Elfering A. Pain assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(S1):S17–S24.
  • Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937817318513?via%3Dihub.
  • Orji EO, Olaleye AO, Loto OM, et al. A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48(6):570–574.
  • Wilkinson C, Enkin MW. Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2(2):CD000085.
  • Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr G. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4(4):CD000085.
  • Edi-Osagie EC, Hopkins RE, Ogbo V, et al. Uterine exteriorisation at caesarean section: influence on maternal morbidity. BJOG. 1998;105(10):1070–1078.
  • Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, et al. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(Suppl 11):S240–S252.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.