Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Wound drainage for caesarean section

  1. Simon Gates1,*,
  2. Elizabeth R Anderson2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Wounds Group

Published Online: 13 DEC 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 14 NOV 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004549.pub3


How to Cite

Gates S, Anderson ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD004549. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004549.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Coventry, UK

  2. 2

    Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Department of Genito-urinary Medicine, Liverpool, UK

*Simon Gates, Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. s.gates@warwick.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 13 DEC 2013

SEARCH

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
Al Inany 2002 {published data only}
  • Al Inany H, Youssef G, El Maguid AA, Hamid MA, Naguib A. Value of subcutaneous drainage system in obese females undergoing cesarean section using Pfannenstiel incision. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2002;53(2):75-8.
Allaire 2000 {published data only}
  • Allaire A, Fisch J, McMahon M. A prospective randomized trial of subcutaneous drain versus subcutaneous suture in obese women undergoing cesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178(1 (Pt 2)):S78.
  • Allaire AD, Fisch J, McMahon MJ. Subcutaneous drain vs. suture in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery: A prospective, randomized trial. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2000;45(4):327-31.
CAESAR 2010 {published data only}
Kumar 2004 {published data only}
  • Kumar SA. Subcutaneous drain versus subcutaneous stitch closure to prevent wound disruption after cesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 2004;54(3):237-42.
Loong 1988 {published data only}
  • Loong R, Rogers M, Chang A. A controlled trial on wound drainage in Caesarean section. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1988;28(4):266-9.
Magann 2002 {published data only}
  • Magann E, Chauhan S, Rodts Palenik S, Bufkin L, Martin JN Jr, et al. Subcutaneous stitch closure versus subcutaneous drain to prevent wound disruption after cesarean delivery: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;186(6):1119-23.
Maharaj 2000 {published data only}
Ochsenbein-Imhof 2001 {published data only}
  • Imhof N, Hebisch G, Huch A, Huch R, Zimmerman R. Use of drainage vs no drain for caesarean section. Gynäkologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau 1999;39:164.
  • Ochsenbein-Imhof N, Huch A, Huch R, Zimmermann R. No benefit from post-caesarean wound drainage. Swiss Medical Weekly 2001;131(17-18):248-50.
Ramsey 2005 {published data only}
  • Ramsey PS, White AM, Duinn DA, Lu GC, Ramin SM, Davies JK, et al. Subcutaneous tissue re approximation, alone or in combination with drain, in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;105(5 Part 1):967-73.
Saunders 1988 {published data only}

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
Bose 2006 {published data only}
  • Bose M, Pannigrahi R, Mohapatra K, Patel O, Sahoo LN. Subcutaneous drain versus subcutaneous stitch closure to reduce postoperative morbidity following cesarean section [abstract]. 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Jan 6-9 2006; Cochin, Kerala, India. 2006.

Additional references

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
Deeks 2001
  • Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG editor(s). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
Enkin 1995
  • Enkin MW. Closed suction wound drainage at caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1995, Issue Disk Issue 2.
Higgins 2002
Higgins 2009b
Higgins 2011a
  • Higgins JPT and Altman DG on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group (Editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Hofmeyr 2008
Lefebvre 2011
  • Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J, on behalf of the Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
SIGN 2009
  • Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/filters.html#random (accessed  9 June 2009).
Tully 2002
  • Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P, McKenzie-McHarg K, Ayers S. Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2002;102(2):120-6.