Intervention Review

Techniques for caesarean section

  1. G Justus Hofmeyr1,*,
  2. Matthews Mathai2,
  3. Archana N Shah2,
  4. Natalia Novikova3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Published Online: 23 APR 2008

Assessed as up-to-date: 5 NOV 2007

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2

Database Title

Additional Information

How to Cite

Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah AN, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004662. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of the Witwatersrand, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa

  2. 2

    World Health Organization, Department of Making Pregnancy Safer, Geneva, Switzerland

  3. 3

    Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Women's Health and Neonatology, Sydney, NSW, Australia

*G Justus Hofmeyr, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, University of the Witwatersrand, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, Frere and Cecilia Makiwane Hospitals, Private Bag X 9047, East London, Eastern Cape, 5200, South Africa. justhof@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 23 APR 2008

SEARCH

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Summary (57K)Standard (437K)Full (656K)
 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary

Background

Rates of caesarean section (CS) have been rising globally. It is important to use the most effective and safe technique.

Objectives

To compare the effects of complete methods of caesarean section; and to summarise the findings of reviews of individual aspects of caesarean section technique.

Search strategy

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (August 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3) and reference lists of identified papers.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials of intention to perform caesarean section using different techniques.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed studies and extracted data.

Main results

'Joel-Cohen based' compared with Pfannenstiel CS was associated with:

less blood loss, (five trials, 481 women; weighted mean difference (WMD) -64.45 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) -91.34 to -37.56 ml);
shorter operating time (five trials, 581 women; WMD -18.65; 95% CI -24.84 to -12.45 minutes);
postoperatively, reduced time to oral intake (five trials, 481 women; WMD -3.92; 95% CI -7.13 to -0.71 hours);
less fever (eight trials, 1412 women; relative risk (RR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81);
shorter duration of postoperative pain (two comparisons from one trial, 172 women; WMD -14.18 hours; 95% CI -18.31 to -10.04 hours);
fewer analgesic injections (two trials, 151 women; WMD -0.92; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.63); and
shorter time from skin incision to birth of the baby (five trials, 575 women; WMD -3.84 minutes; 95% CI -5.41 to -2.27 minutes).
Serious complications and blood transfusions were too few for analysis.

Authors' conclusions

'Joel-Cohen based' methods have advantages compared to Pfannenstiel and to traditional (lower midline) CS techniques, which could translate to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on mortality and serious or long-term morbidity such as morbidly adherent placenta and scar rupture.

 

Plain language summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Plain language summary

Techniques for caesarean section

Caesarean sections are performed as both elective and urgent procedures and the rates are rising. The major complications are intraoperative damage to organs, anaesthetic complications, bleeding, infection and thromboembolism. The techniques used vary considerably. Available evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that the Joel-Cohen based techniques (Joel-Cohen, Misgav-Ladach) have short-term advantages over Pfannenstiel (11 trials) and traditional lower midline (two trials) methods. Blood loss, operating time, time from skin incision to birth of the baby, use of pain killers, time to oral intake and bowel function or mobilisation and fever are all reduced.

Use of Joel-Cohen based methods could result in improved short-term outcomes and savings for health systems but robust data on long-term outcomes (pain, fertility, morbidly adherent placenta and rupture of the uterus) after the different techniques (including two suture layers compared with single-layer uterine closure) are needed.

View Full Article (HTML) Summary (57K)Standard (437K)Full (656K)