|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean sectionAnderson ER, Gates S
. . . .
.
. . . .
Bookmark this:
loading... please wait
SummaryTechniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean sectionThere is not enough evidence to say whether particular techniques for closing the abdominal wall during caesarean section are better than others. Different techniques and suture materials are used in caesarean section for closure of the rectus sheath (fibrous material enclosing the muscles of the abdominal wall). No research has examined whether any technique for closing the rectus sheath is preferable. The subcutaneous fat (between the sheath and the skin) may be left to heal without suturing, or can be closed using a variety of techniques. Closing the subcutaneous fat may reduce the risk of some wound complications (haematoma and seroma) but further research is needed to investigate how these outcomes affect the well-being and recovery of the women concerned.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008 Issue 3, Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
October 18. 2004 AbstractBackgroundThere is a variety of techniques for closing the abdominal wall during caesarean section. Some methods may be better in terms of postoperative recovery and other important outcomes. ObjectivesTo compare the effects of alternative techniques for closure of the rectus sheath and subcutaneous fat on maternal health and healthcare resource use. Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2003), EMBASE (1980 to September 2003), CINAHL (1983 to September 2003) and CAB Health (1973 to September 2003), and the reference lists of included articles. Selection criteriaRandomised trials making any of the following comparisons: Data collection and analysisBoth reviewers evaluated trials for eligibility and methodological quality without consideration of their results. Main resultsSeven studies involving 2056 women were included. The risk of haematoma or seroma was reduced with fat closure compared with non-closure (relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.82), as was the risk of 'wound complication' (haematoma, seroma, wound infection or wound separation) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88). No difference in the risk of wound infection alone or other short-term outcomes was found. No long-term outcomes were reported. There was no difference in the risk of wound infection between blunt needles and sharp needles in one small study. No studies were found examining suture techniques or materials for closure of the rectus sheath or subcutaneous fat. Authors' conclusions
Implications for practice
Implications for research
|