Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40326699›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025

Comparison of the effectiveness and pregnancy outcomes of the "incise and suture" versus "fold and suture" methods in hysteroscopic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of previous cesarean scar defect: A retrospective cohort study.

Shiying Wu, Weiwei Hu, Xiangyang Zeng, Shuijing Yi, Xuanning Wang, Qi Zhang, Hua Wang, Yueran Li, Jianfa Jiang, Songshu Xiao

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Shiying WuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Weiwei HuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xiangyang ZengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Shuijing YiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xuanning WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Qi ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Hua WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yueran LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jianfa JiangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Songshu XiaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1932-8052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the clinical efficacy of the hysteroscopic-assisted laparoscopic incised-suture versus folded-suture methods at the cesarean incision site for the treatment of previous cesarean scar defects (PCSD) and to evaluate pregnancy outcomes.

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 95 patients with PCSD who underwent hysteroscopic-assisted laparoscopic surgery between June 2021 and September 2024 at the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University.

resultsThere were no significant differences in population characteristics such as age and number of cesarean sections (P > 0.05). The folded-suture group had shorter operation time (39.03 ± 1.17 vs. 60.28 ± 1.14 min, P < 0.001) and volume of intraoperative hemorrhage (5.00, 2.00 vs. 20.00, 10.00 mL, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant variations in the cure or effective rates regarding menstrual abnormalities between the two groups at 3 months, 6 months, 1-year post-surgery and the terms of overall clinical efficacy (P > 0.05). The overall effective rates for the incised- and folded-suture groups were 76.4% and 75.0%, respectively. In comparison to the incised-suture group, the desire to maintain postoperative fertility in the folded-suture group was significantly greater (odds ratio [OR] 8.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.27-30.58, P < 0.001), and the average time after surgery to pregnancy was shorter (5.60 ± 0.72 vs. 11.00 ± 2.70 months, P < 0.05). No substantial difference was observed in the pregnancy outcomes between the two groups.

conclusionHysteroscopic-assisted laparoscopic cesarean incised and folded suturing are both effective, with folded suturing being more safe and more suitable for patients requiring short-term fertility.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionCicatrixHysteroscopyLaparoscopySuture TechniquesAdultFemaleHumansOperative TimePregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomeclinical effectivenesshysteroscopylaparoscopyprevious cesarean scar defect (PCSD)surgical approach

Identifiers

PMID40326699
PMCPMC12447692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.