Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
A prospective comparative study of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure techniques on cesarean scar formation.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03644433 (Impact of Single Layer Versus Double Layer Uterine Closure on the Cesarean Scar Healing), which is not on this 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.
Impact of Single Layer Versus Double Layer Uterine Closure on the Cesarean Scar Healing
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Uterine closure after cesarean delivery: surgical technique, biological rationale, and clinical implications.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis prospective clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure techniques on cesarean scar healing in women undergoing repeat cesarean delivery.
methodsSeventy women aged 18-50 years with a history of at least one prior cesarean delivery were randomized into two groups: single-layer non-locking closure (n = 35) and double-layer non-locking closure with surgical refreshing of the incision edges (n = 35). The primary outcome was residual myometrial thickness (RMT) measured by transvaginal ultrasonography at six months. Secondary outcomes included RMT at six weeks, healing ratios, presence of niche, operative time, transfusion need, infectious morbidity, and hospital stay duration. Sample size was based on preliminary data indicating a mean RMT of 5 mm (SD 0.6 mm). To detect a 0.5 mm difference with α = 0.05 and β = 0.8, 26 participants per group were required; 35 were enrolled per group.
resultsAt six months, the double-layer group had significantly greater RMT (5.1 ± 0.4 mm vs. 4.1 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.001). Similar findings were seen at six weeks. Operative time was shorter in the single-layer group. However, this group required more frequent additional uterine suturing due to suboptimal tissue approximation or bleeding, which did not significantly extend operative duration. Hemoglobin levels and hospital stay were comparable. Transfusion was needed in one patient in the single-layer group and three in the double-layer group.
conclusionDouble-layer closure with surgical edge refreshing was associated with improved cesarean scar healing based on RMT.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03644433. Registered on 06 July 2018.
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.