Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31441500›Full record

Trial reportActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2020

Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.

Jiri Hanacek, Jiri Vojtech, Iva Urbankova, Michal Krcmar, Petr Křepelka, Jaroslav Feyereisl, Ladislav Krofta

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05312775 (Single Versus Double-layer Closure of The Cesarean Scar In Niche Development), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

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
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiri HanacekInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jiri VojtechInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.
Iva UrbankovaInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.
Michal KrcmarInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.
Petr KřepelkaInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jaroslav FeyereislInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ladislav KroftaInstitute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7372-3953
Charles University · CZÚstav pro Péči o Matku a Dítě · CZ

Funding

PROGRESPROGRES Q 34, Charles University project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study compared healing of the scars after cesarean section during the first postpartum year using a single- or double-layer suturing technique. Scarring was assessed by a transvaginal ultrasound. We explored the appearance and localization of uterine scars with regard to the obstetric history. Our aim was to compare the position of the scar or defect, if present, its dimensions, and any residual myometrium with respect to the suturing technique during the cesarean section. MATERIAL AND

methodsWomen with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies indicated for elective or acute cesarean section were randomly allocated to the uterine closure technique group. During the first postpartum year, their lower uterine segment was examined with a transvaginal ultrasound in three consecutive visits at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months.

results324 women attended the 12-month visit; of these, 149 underwent single-layer closure of the uterine incision and 175 double-layer technique. A higher proportion of the defects is seen in the single-layer closure technique of suturing. Defects in the single-layer group were wider (0.002) and the residual myometrial thickness in the single-layer group were thinner (0.019). Women who underwent cesarean section at the stage of full cervical dilation had scars that were closer to the external cervical os (0.000). The position of the uterus varies greatly between controls (0.000). The combination of uterine position and scar defect presence changed significantly between controls (0.001), and was significantly dependent on the suturing method (0.003). Defects with or without contact with the uterine cavity changed statistically between controls (0.017). Both types of defects were more common in the single-layer closure technique group.

conclusionsThe findings of this study demonstrate that double-layer technique with the first continuous nonlocking suture followed by a second continuous nonlocking suture is associated with better suture healing and greater residual myometrial thickness. No difference was observed between single- and double-layer closure for the presence of maternal infectious morbidity, wound infection or blood transfusion.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionSuture TechniquesAdultCicatrixFemaleHumansUltrasonographyWound HealingYoung Adultcesarean sectiondouble-layer techniquesuture healinguterine scaruterine suture

Identifiers

PMID31441500
PMCPMC6973250
OpenAlexW2969658986

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.