ArticleGynecology and pelvic medicine2026
The importance of any surgical detail: the surgical technique of suturing the uterus during cesarean section.
Article in Gynecology and pelvic medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cesarean section (CS) rates have risen substantially and now represent the most frequently performed abdominal surgical procedure. This increase has been accompanied by a parallel rise in operative and postoperative complications. Despite its widespread use, CS technique remains highly heterogeneous across countries, hospitals, and even among obstetricians working in the same departments. Surgical standardization has the potential to reduce complications and improve both short- and long-term outcomes. Among the most controversial technical aspects of CS are the level of the uterine incision in the lower uterine segment (LUS), the use of single- versus double-layer closure of the uterine wall, and the caliber of the needle used for suturing. These elements therefore need critical evaluation, as they are important for uterine healing, scar integrity, and outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. The level of the uterine incision is particularly important, as lower incisions involve a higher proportion of fibrous tissue and less muscular tissue, which is important for the scar tensile strength and promote optimal healing. In this article, these three components are examined, and based on clinical experience and histology knowledge, a rational, standardized surgical approach is proposed. Lower LUS incisions incorporating predominantly fibrous tissue will result in a stronger uterine scar. Single-layer uterine closure minimizes retained suture material while providing adequate mechanical support, and the use of larger caliber needles reduces the amount of the remained suture material, thereby limiting foreign-body reactions. Standardization of these aspects of CS technique may improve surgical outcomes, enhance uterine scar quality, and will enable meaningful comparisons among clinical studies.
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.