SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 22 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.
The Influence of Endometrial Suturing During Cesarean Section on the Risk to Develop Uterine Scar Defect: A Randomized Control Study
The Effect of Pre-operative Versus Post-operative Misoprostol in Reducing Blood Loss During and After Elective Cesarean Section.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rate of cesarean section among breech deliveries in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Enhanced recovery after elective caesarean: a rapid review of clinical protocols, and an umbrella review of systematic reviews.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Pooled it
- European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015Guideline
- Trial
- Successful cesarean section utilizing a right paramedian incision in a woman who had a mitrofanoff procedure: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2026Article
- Comparing Cesarean Scar Defect Incidence After Locked and Unlocked Repair Methods Among Primiparous Patients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Trial.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2024Article
- Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Relationship between routine urinary catheterization and postoperative urinary symptoms and urinary tract infections in women undergoing elective caesarean section.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Article
- Article
- ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency-2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Review
- Mechanical Effects of a Maylard Scar During a Vaginal Birth After a Previous Caesarean.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2021Article
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes in transverse and vertical skin incision for placenta previa : Skin incision for placenta previa.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Routine haemoglobin assay after uncomplicated caesarean sections.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2021Article
- Article
- Observational
- Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2018Review
- Standard of Open Surgical Repair of Suprapubic Incisional Hernias.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges.International journal of women's health · 2017Review
- A randomized controlled trial comparing the effect of intravenous, subcutaneous, and intranasal fentanyl for pain management in patients undergoing cesarean section.Advanced biomedical research · 2016Article
- Safety of uneventful cesarean section in terms of hemorrhage.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section is the commonest major operation performed on women worldwide. Operative techniques, including abdominal incisions, vary. Some of these techniques have been evaluated through randomised trials.
objectivesTo determine the benefits and risks of alternative methods of abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of intention to perform caesarean section using different abdominal incisions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from the sources, checked them for accuracy and analysed the data. MAIN
resultsFour studies (666 women) were included in this review.Two studies (411 women) compared the Joel-Cohen incision with the Pfannenstiel incision. Overall, there was a 65% reduction in reported postoperative febrile morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87) with the Joel-Cohen incision. One of the trials reported reduced postoperative analgesic requirements (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76); operating time (mean difference (MD) -11.40, 95% CI -16.55 to -6.25 minutes); delivery time (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.27 minutes); total dose of analgesia in the first 24 hours (MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.59); estimated blood loss (MD -58.00, 95% CI -108.51 to -7.49 mL); postoperative hospital stay for the mother (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.84 days); and increased time to the first dose of analgesia (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.48 hours) compared with the Pfannenstiel group. No other significant differences were found in either trial.Two studies compared muscle cutting incisions with Pfannenstiel incision. One study (68 women) comparing Mouchel incision with Pfannenstiel incision did not contribute data to this review. The other study (97 women) comparing the Maylard muscle-cutting incision with the Pfannenstiel incision, reported no difference in febrile morbidity (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 19.50); need for blood transfusion (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.02 to 9.98); wound infection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.91); physical tests on muscle strength at three months postoperative and postoperative hospital stay (MD 0.40 days, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.14). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe Joel-Cohen incision has advantages compared with the Pfannenstiel incision. These are: less fever, pain and analgesic requirements; less blood loss; shorter duration of surgery and hospital stay. These advantages for the mother could be extrapolated to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on severe or long-term morbidity and mortality.
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.