Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31191847›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2018

Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair: effect on intraoperative nausea and vomiting during repeat cesarean delivery - A randomized clinical trial.

M S Abdellah, A M Abbas, M K Ali, A Mahmoud, S A Abdullah

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03009994 (Exteriorization Versus Non-exteriorization of the Uterus During Repair of Uterine Incision in a Repeated Cesarean Section), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

NCT03009994 nacompletednot on this map

Exteriorization Versus Non-exteriorization of the Uterus During Repair of Uterine Incision in a Repeated Cesarean Section

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2016 to 2017Enrolled1,024ConditionsIntrapartum HemorrhageArmsRepair of uterine incision, Exteriorization of the uterus, Non exteriorization of the uterus
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair in Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M S AbdellahDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt. Women Health Hospital,71511,Assiut Egypt.
A M AbbasDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt. Women Health Hospital,71511,Assiut Egypt.
M K AliDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt. Women Health Hospital,71511,Assiut Egypt.
A MahmoudDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt. Women Health Hospital,71511,Assiut Egypt.
S A AbdullahDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt. Women Health Hospital,71511,Assiut Egypt.
Assiut University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe current study aims to compare the rate of intraoperative nausea and vomiting after repeat cesarean delivery (CD) under two different approaches: by intraperitoneal incision repair or by uterus exteriorization for incision reapair. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial (NCT03009994) at a tertiary University Hospital between the 1st of September 2016 and the 31st of December 2017. The study included pregnant women at term of gestation (>37 weeks) scheduled for repeat CD under spinal anesthesia. Women were assigned to either uterine exteriorization for incision repair (Group I) or intraperitoneal incision repair (Group II). The primary assessed was the rate of nausea and vomiting during CD.

resultsThe study included 1028 women in the final analysis. The rate of intraoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the intraperitoneal repair group compared to the exteriorization group (24% versus 38.7%, p= 0.001). Likewise, occurrence of uterine atony and the need for additional uterotonics were significantly lower in the intraperitoneal repair group (p= 0.001 and 0.02 respectively). Postoperatively, the rate of nausea and vomiting (12.6 % versus 21 %; P=0.001), and the time to the first recognized bowel movement (12.3 hours versus 14.1 hours; P=0.003) were significantly lower in the intraperitoneal repair group compared to the exteriorization group.

conclusionsIntraperitoneal repair of the uterine incision during repeat CD is beneficial compared to exteriorization. Improvements in the rate of intra- and postoperative nausea, vomiting, uterine atony and time to the first recognized bowel movement were observed in patients operated with this technique.

Indexed as

cesarean deliveryExteriorizationnauseauterine incisionuterine repairvomiting

Identifiers

PMID31191847
PMCPMC6548409
OpenAlexW2980663580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.