SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of 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. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled 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
- Trial
- The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2007Trial
- Does craniocaudal extension of the hysterotomy reduce intraoperative complications compared with transverse extension in the case of emergency caesarean section?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- The importance of any surgical detail: the surgical technique of suturing the uterus during cesarean section.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence-Based Cesarean Delivery for the Nonobstetrician.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Review
- The never ending debate single-layer versus double-layer closure of the uterine incision at cesarean section.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2014Article
- Uterine closure with unlocked suture in cesarean section: Safety and Quality.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2014Article
- Article
- A randomized comparative study on modified Joel-Cohen incision versus Pfannenstiel incision for cesarean section.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2013Article
- Uterine closure in cesarean delivery: a new technique.North American journal of medical sciences · 2012Article
- The use of barbed sutures in obstetrics and gynecology.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2010Article
- Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section is a common operation. Techniques vary depending on both the clinical situation and the preferences of the operator.
objectivesTo compare the effects of 1) different types of uterine incision, 2) methods of performing the uterine incision, 3) suture materials and technique of uterine closure (including single versus double layer closure of the uterine incision) on maternal health, infant health, and health care resource use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing various types and closure of uterine incision during caesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the stated eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. MAIN
resultsWe identified 30 studies, of which 15 (3972 women) were included. Ten trials compared single layer uterine closure with double layer uterine closure (2531 women), two trials compared blunt with sharp dissection at the time of the uterine incision (1241 women), and two trials compared auto-suture devices with traditional hysterotomy (300 women). Blunt dissection was associated with a reduction in mean blood loss at the time of the procedure when compared with sharp dissection of the uterine incision (one study, 945 women, mean difference (MD) -43.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -66.12 to -19.88). There was no statistically significant difference related to need for blood transfusion (one study, 945 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01). The use of an auto-suture instrument when compared with traditional methods of hysterotomy was associated with no difference in the amount of blood loss during the procedure (one study, 200 women, MD -87.00, 95% CI -175.09 to 1.09), but a statistically significant increase in the duration of the procedure (one study, 197 women, MD 3.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.62). Single layer closure compared with double layer closure was associated with a statistically significant reduction in mean blood loss (three studies, 527 women, MD -70.11, 95% CI -101.61 to -38.60); duration of the operative procedure (four studies, 645 women, MD -7.43, 95% CI -8.41 to -6.46); and presence of postoperative pain (one study, 158 women, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91). AUTHORS'
conclusionsWhile caesarean section is a common procedure performed on women worldwide, there is little information available to inform the most appropriate surgical technique to adopt.
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.