SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Techniques for caesarean section.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06620432 (High Segmental Hysterotomy vs. Low Segmental Hysterotomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
High Segmental Hysterotomy vs. Low Segmental Hysterotomy: Association With the Incidence of Uterine Wall Defects After Cesarean Section
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Wound drainage for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004Pooled it
- Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2004Pooled it
- Trial
- Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Trial
- The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2007Trial
- 'Making the Implicit Explicit': The Recommended Steps of a Caesarean Section, a Delphi Study Among South African Experts.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2026Article
- Study protocol. TRAAPREVIA-TRAnexamic acid for preventing blood loss following a cesarean delivery in women with a placenta pREVIA or low-lying placenta: a multicenter randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- RETRACTED: The effect of placing drains and no drains after caesarean section in obese patients on patients' post-operative wound complications: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Could Electromyographic and Pressure Related Signals Identify Differences in Abdominal Activity and Postural Control between Women with and without C-Section?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Observational
- Association between surgical technique, adhesions and morbidity in women with repeat caesarean section: a retrospective study in a rural hospital in Western Tanzania.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- TRAAP2 - TRAnexamic Acid for Preventing postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: a multicenter randomized, doubleblind, placebo- controlled trial - a study protocol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Management of Adhesions Developed after Peritoneal Nonclosure in Primary Cesarean Section Delivery.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2018Article
- Cosmetic outcomes of cesarean section scar; subcuticular suture versus intradermal buried suture.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRates of caesarean section (CS) have been rising globally. It is important to use the most effective and safe technique.
objectivesTo compare the effects of complete methods of caesarean section; and to summarise the findings of reviews of individual aspects of caesarean section technique. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (August 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3) and reference lists of identified papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of intention to perform caesarean section using different techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies and extracted data. MAIN
results'Joel-Cohen based' compared with Pfannenstiel CS was associated with: less blood loss, (five trials, 481 women; weighted mean difference (WMD) -64.45 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) -91.34 to -37.56 ml); shorter operating time (five trials, 581 women; WMD -18.65; 95% CI -24.84 to -12.45 minutes); postoperatively, reduced time to oral intake (five trials, 481 women; WMD -3.92; 95% CI -7.13 to -0.71 hours); less fever (eight trials, 1412 women; relative risk (RR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81); shorter duration of postoperative pain (two comparisons from one trial, 172 women; WMD -14.18 hours; 95% CI -18.31 to -10.04 hours); fewer analgesic injections (two trials, 151 women; WMD -0.92; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.63); and shorter time from skin incision to birth of the baby (five trials, 575 women; WMD -3.84 minutes; 95% CI -5.41 to -2.27 minutes). Serious complications and blood transfusions were too few for analysis.Misgav-Ladach compared with the traditional method (lower midline abdominal incision) was associated with reduced: blood loss (339 women; WMD -93.00; 95% CI -132.72 to -53.28 ml); operating time (339 women; WMD-7.30; 95% CI -8.32 to -6.28 minutes); time to mobilisation (339 women; WMD -16.06; 95% CI -18.22 to -13.90 hours); and length of postoperative stay for the mother (339 women; WMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.56 days). Misgav-Ladach compared with modified Misgav-Ladach methods was associated with a longer time from skin incision to birth of the baby (116 women; WMD 2.10; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.10 minutes). AUTHORS'
conclusions'Joel-Cohen based' methods have advantages compared to Pfannenstiel and to traditional (lower midline) CS techniques, which could translate to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on mortality and serious or long-term morbidity such as morbidly adherent placenta and scar rupture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.