Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Obstetric and gyneacology department .faculty of medicin .minia university.elminia
2
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine – Minia University, Egypt.
3
Obest and gynecology, faculty of medicin ,minia university ,minia ,elminia
Abstract
Abstract
Background: During a caesarean section, there is some debate over whether or not to exteriorize the uterus. Routine uterine exteriorization does not seem to be supported by enough evidence. It's still unclear whether this practice ought to be become standard operating procedure. Our goal was to compare the outcomes of Caesarean deliveries in which the uterine incision was repaired externally vs inside.
Methods: A prospective Randomized and single-blinded trial spanned from February to December of 2022. Two groups, A and B, with A receiving repairs after exteriorization and B receiving in situ repair. Intraoperative internal bleeding, postpartum anemic, transfusion rate, mean operating time, perioperative wound infection rate, and postoperative nausea and vomiting are be measured.
Results: A statistically significant increase in the frequency of nausea and vomiting among some of the women who had exteriorization compared to those whose uteri had repaired in-situ. Average preoperative haematocrit, postoperative haematocrit, estimated blood loss (575 vs 577 ml, p = 0.942), transfusion rate (15.3% vs 17.9%, p = 0.518), postpartum anaemia, operative time, and surgical site infections rate were not significantly different between the exteriorization and in situ groups.
Conclusion: Exteriorization and in-situ repair of uterine incisions are equal in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative anaemia, and infections at the surgical site, although the former is linked to significantly more nausea and vomiting than the latter. The results could not definitively prove that one was superior to the other.
Keywords: Uterine excision, uterine in situ repair, and caesarean section
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
View on SCiNiTO