Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25048608›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section.

Jodie M Dodd, Elizabeth R Anderson, Simon Gates, Rosalie M Grivell

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03039803 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Double-layer Versus Single-layer Uterine Closure Suture in Cesarean Section on the Development of Postoperative Uterine Scar Deficiency: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical University of ViennaRan2017 to 2019Enrolled200ConditionsCesarean Section, Uterine Scar Deficiency, Myometrial Thickness, Single-layer Continuous Uterotomy SutureArmsuterine closure during cesarean section
NCT05312775 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Single Versus Double-layer Closure of The Cesarean Scar In Niche Development: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNguyen Thi Thu HaRan2022 to 2026Enrolled938ConditionsNicheArmsDouble-layer uterine closure, Single-layer uterine closure
NCT06620432 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

High Segmental Hysterotomy vs. Low Segmental Hysterotomy: Association With the Incidence of Uterine Wall Defects After Cesarean Section

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundacion Clinica Valle del LiliRan2025 to 2027Enrolled168ConditionsPlacenta Accreta SpectrumArmsLow segment hysterotomy, High segment hysterotomy, Crossed hysterorrhaphy, Non-Crossed hysterorrhaphy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effect of Closure of Anterior Abdominal Wall Layers on Early Postoperative Findings at Cesarean Section: A Prospective Cross-sectional Study.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Lower-Segment Transverse Cesarean Section.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jodie M DoddSchool of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, 72 King William Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5006.
Elizabeth R Anderson
Simon Gates
Rosalie M Grivell
Royal Liverpool University Hospital · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBWomen's and Children's Health Network · AUWomen's and Children's Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 healthcare resource use. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 September 2013) and reference lists of all identified papers. 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 review authors evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the stated eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. MAIN

resultsOur search strategy identified 60 studies for consideration, of which 27 randomised trials involving 17,808 women undergoing caesarean section were included in the review. Overall, the methodological quality of the trials was variable, with 12 of the 27 included trials adequately describing the randomisation sequence, with less than half describing adequately methods of allocation concealment, and only six trials indicating blinding of outcome assessors.Two trials compared auto-suture devices with traditional hysterotomy involving 300 women. No statistically significant difference in febrile morbidity between the stapler and conventional incision groups was apparent (risk ratio (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 2.20).Five studies were included in the review that compared blunt versus sharp dissection when performing the uterine incision involving 2141 women. There were no statistically significant differences identified for the primary outcome febrile morbidity following blunt or sharp extension of the uterine incision (four studies; 1941 women; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05). Mean blood loss (two studies; 1145 women; average mean difference (MD) -55.00 mL; 95% CI -79.48 to -30.52), and the need for blood transfusion (two studies; 1345 women; RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.62) were significantly lower following blunt extension.A single trial compared transverse with cephalad-caudad blunt extension of the uterine incision, involving 811 women, and while mean blood loss was reported to be lower following transverse extension (one study; 811 women; MD 42.00 mL; 95% CI 1.31 to 82.69), the clinical significance of such a small volume difference is of uncertain clinical relevance. There were no other statistically significant differences identified for the limited outcomes reported.A single trial comparing chromic catgut with polygactin-910, involving 9544 women reported that catgut closure versus closure with polygactin was associated with a significant reduction in the need for blood transfusion (one study, 9544 women, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76) and a significant reduction in complications requiring re-laparotomy (one study, 9544 women, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89).Nineteen studies were identified comparing single layer with double layer closure of the uterus, with data contributed to the meta-analyses from 14 studies. There were no statistically significant differences identified for the primary outcome, febrile morbidity (nine studies; 13,890 women; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12). Although the meta-analysis suggested single layer closure was associated with a reduction in mean blood loss, heterogeneity is high and this limits the clinical applicability of the result. There were no differences identified in risk of blood transfusion (four studies; 13,571 women; average RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.15; I² = 49%), or other reported clinical outcomes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCaesarean section is a common procedure performed on women worldwide. There is increasing evidence that for many techniques, short-term maternal outcomes are equivalent. Until long-term health effects are known, surgeons should continue to use the techniques they prefer and currently use.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesAbdominal Wound Closure TechniquesBlood Loss, SurgicalCesarean SectionDissectionFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuturesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25048608
PMCPMC11182567
OpenAlexW2117421814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.