Top

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Published in:

01-04-2011 | Materno-fetal Medicine

Cesarean techniques in cases with one previous cesarean delivery: comparison of modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel–Kerr

Authors: Ali Gedikbasi, Alpaslan Akyol, Volkan Ulker, Dogukan Yildirim, Oguz Arslan, Erbil Karaman, Yavuz Ceylan

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2011

Abstract

Aim

To compare the effectiveness of the Pfannenstiel–Kerr method (PKM) or modified Misgav-Ladach method (MMLM) in previous cesarean sections (C/Ss).

Methods

Hundred and fifteen gravidas were included with previous one C/S, using either a PKM or MMLM. Demographic characteristics, operative outcomes, surgical complications, and neonatal outcomes were compared in two groups.

Results

The mean operative time (18.0 ± 3.5 vs. 23.5 ± 5.7 min; p < 0.0001) and mean extraction time (90.1 ± 41.2 vs. 208.1 ± 79.1 s; p < 0.0001) were significantly shorter in the MMLM group than the PKM group. Postoperative recovery (mobilization, normalization of bowel function, need for analgesics, time to oral feeding, and intra-operative blood loss) was similar between the MMLM and PKM groups.

Conclusion

The MMLM appears to be a faster alternative to PKM for previous C/Ss, with similar results as in previous studies with primary CSs.

Magann EF, Washburne JF, Harris RL, Bass JD, Duff WP, Morrison JC (1995) Infectious morbidity, operative blood loss, and length of the operative procedure after cesarean delivery by method of placental removal and site of uterine repair. J Am Coll Surg 181:517–520PubMed

Nagele F, Karas H, Spitzer D, Staudach A, Karasegh S, Beck A, Husslein P (1996) Closure or non-closure of the visceral peritoneum at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1366–1370PubMedCrossRef

Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Raio L, Di Naro E, Miglierina M, Agosti M, Bolis P (2002) Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does it make a difference? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:1040–1046PubMedCrossRef

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

Federici D, Lacelli B, Muggiasca L, Agarossi A, Cipolla L, Conti M (1997) Cesarean section using the Misgav Ladach method. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 57:273–279PubMedCrossRef

Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M (1999) The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78:615–621PubMedCrossRef

Xavier P, Ayres-De-Campos D, Reynolds A, Guimaraes M, Costa Santos C, Patricio B (2005) The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:878–882PubMed

Kulas T, Habek D, Karsa M, Bobic-Vukovic M (2008) Modified Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: clinical experience. Gynecol Obstet Invest 65:222–226PubMedCrossRef

Ayres-de-Campos D, Patricio B (2000) Modifications to the Misgav Ladach technique for cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79:326–327PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N (2008) Techniques for cesarean section. Cochrane Database Rev: CD004662 (Review)

11.

Grundsell HS, Rizk DEE, Kumar RM (1998) Randomized study of non-closure of peritoneum in lower segment cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:110–115PubMedCrossRef

12.

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

13.

Fatusić Z, Kurjak A, Jasarević E, Hafner T (2003) The Misgav Ladach method—a step forward in operative technique in obstetrics. J Perinat Med 31:395–398PubMedCrossRef

14.

Björklund K, Kimaro M, Urassa E, Lindmark G (2000) Introduction of the Misgav Ladach caesarean section at an African tertiary centre: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 107:209–216PubMedCrossRef

15.

Darj E, Nordström ML (1999) The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78:37–41PubMedCrossRef

16.

Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Balestreri D, Beretta P, Maymon E, Miglierina M, Bolis PF (1998) A randomized clinical trial of two surgical techniques for cesarean section. Am J Perinatol 15:589–594PubMedCrossRef

17.

Mathai M, Ambersheth S, George A (2002) Comparison of two transverse abdominal incisions for cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 78:47–49PubMedCrossRef

18.

Wallin G, Fall O (1999) Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:221–226PubMedCrossRef

19.

Owen J, Andrews WW (1994) Wound complications after cesarean sections. Clin Obstet Gynecol 37:842–845PubMedCrossRef

20.

Del Valle GO, Combs P, Qualls C, Curet LB (1992) Does closure of Camper fascia reduce the incidence of postcesarean superficial wound disruption? Obstet Gynecol 80:1013–1016PubMed

21.

Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owens J, Hodgkins PM, Lincoln T (1995) Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol 85:412–416PubMedCrossRef

22.

Stark M (1993) Clinical evidence that suturing the peritoneum after laparotomy is unnecessary for healing. World J Surg 17:419PubMedCrossRef

Title: Cesarean techniques in cases with one previous cesarean delivery: comparison of modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel–Kerr
Authors: Ali Gedikbasi
Alpaslan Akyol
Volkan Ulker
Dogukan Yildirim
Oguz Arslan
Erbil Karaman
Yavuz Ceylan
Publication date: 01-04-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1428-y

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Cesarean techniques in cases with one previous cesarean delivery: comparison of modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel–Kerr

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

Molecular characterization of early adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix by oligonucleotide microarray

Age-independent first trimester screening for Down syndrome: analysis of three modified software programs with 6,508 pregnancies

Prevalence of clue cells suggestive for Gardnerella vaginalis in population-based cervical screening in the public versus private health care in Maringá, Paraná, Brazil

Human papillomavirus genotypes distribution in cervical samples from women living with human immunodeficiency virus

Feasibility of office hysteroscopy through the “see and treat technique” in private practice: a prospective observational study

Periodontal disease and perinatal outcomes