Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Blunt versus sharp expansion of uterine incision during lower segment cesarean section.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe method of uterine incision expansion throughout lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) may impact intraoperative blood loss and surgical outcomes. This research aims to compare the effects of blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision on intraoperative hemorrhage by assessing changes in hematocrit (HCT) levels. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of uterine artery injury, the need for intraoperative blood transfusion, and the duration of the cesarean section procedure.
methodsComparative prospective research was performed at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. A total of 120 pregnant women meeting inclusion criteria were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A (blunt expansion using fingers) and Group B (sharp expansion using scissors). Preoperative and postoperative HCT levels were measured to assess intraoperative blood loss. Additional parameters were recorded and analyzed utilizing SPSS software. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsThe blunt expansion group demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, as indicated by a smaller decline in HCT levels (mean difference: 0.9%) compared to the sharp expansion group. Hemoglobin and red blood cell count also showed significantly better preservation in the blunt method group. There was insignificant variance among the two groups regarding uterine artery injury incidence, the need for blood transfusion, or the duration of the cesarean section procedure.
conclusionBlunt expansion of the uterine incision during LSCS was related to reduced intraoperative blood loss. The findings suggested that blunt expansion may be the preferable technique in cesarean deliveries to minimize blood loss while maintaining surgical efficiency.
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.