ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Striking a balance between aesthetics and safety: a comparative study on the maternal and neonatal outcomes of mini-incision cesarean section.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High fetal head in cesarean link between delivery methods and complications.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND SIGNIFICANCE: The pursuit of aesthetic outcomes is a natural tendency for individuals, particularly for women undergoing cesarean sections, who seek to minimize abdominal scarring. The aim of this study is to compare the risks and outcomes of mini-incision cesarean sections with those of conventional incision cesarean sections.
methodsA total of 99 pregnant women with full-term singleton pregnancies, who delivered at the Second Nanning People's Hospital from January 2024 to September 2024, were enrolled in this study. The participants were stratified into two groups: the mini-incision group (n = 33) and the conventional incision group (n = 66). The study evaluated several variables, including the time from incision to fetal delivery (I-D), surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, duration of postoperative antibiotic administration, post-operative hospitalization duration, incidence of wound infection, neonatal adverse outcomes, and blood routine parameters.
resultsThe surgery duration in the mini-incision group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional group. Furthermore, the rate of forceps-assisted delivery was significantly higher in the mini-incision group (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss or maternal and neonatal outcomes, including neonatal complications, incidence of wound infection, and other maternal outcomes.
conclusionOur findings indicate that when a pregnant woman requests a mini-incision cesarean section, the procedure can be safely performed by an experienced obstetrician proficient in forceps-assisted delivery techniques, provided it is not categorized as a Category I cesarean section.
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.