Trial reportTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Evaluation of single-layer versus double-layer suturing of low transverse uterine incisions in cesarean section and follow-up of scars by ultrasound: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective comparative study of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure techniques on cesarean scar formation.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Trial
- Analyzing Influencing Factors of Uterine Rupture in Pregnant Women with Scarred Uterus Undergoing Repeat Delivery and Evaluating the Predictive Value of Lower Uterine Anterior Wall Thickness.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Cesarean section (CS) is a widely performed operation worldwide but data about uterine closure are lacking. We aimed to evaluate scar niches and compare single-layer and double-layer uterine closure at 6 months following CS. Materials and methods: This prospective randomized trial assessed 56 women undergoing single- or double-layer uterine closure. None of the patients had previous uterine surgery and all CS cases were elective. Transvaginal ultrasound was performed 6 months after CS to assess the uterine scars by measuring the width, depth, and length of the scar niche and residual myometrial thickness. An experienced sonographer was blinded to the uterine closure technique and the ultrasounds were conducted by practitioners unaware of the technique in the postoperative follow-up appointments. Results: Twenty-eight women were assigned to the single-layer closure group (Group 1) and 28 were assigned to the double-layer closure group (Group 2). The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and the width, depth and diameter of the niche were similar between the groups, as was residual myometrial thickness. There was no difference in uterine scar volume under the incision between the two groups. The duration of surgery was approximately 5 min longer (p = 0.048) and hemoglobin decrease was about 0.5 g/dL less (p = 0.039) in the double-layer group compared to the single-layer group. Postmenstrual spotting rates were similar between the groups. Group 1 had two and Group 2 had one spontaneous pregnancy within 6 months after CS. Conclusion: The single- and double-layer closure techniques do not produce different impacts on CS niche features at 6 months after delivery. Ultrasound might be an important noninvasive diagnostic tool for understanding CS scar remodeling.
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.