Tamayo GJG, Sereno CJA, Huape AMS

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 75-80
PDF size: 143.51 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The cesarean section was designed to extract to the neoborn, when the childbirth becomes difficult by the natural routes. The institutional obstetrical work demands long surgical time and high raw materials; therefore, simpler procedures must be implemented.
Objective: To compare traditional cesarean section vs Misgav-Ladach technique to assess surgical time, and hospitalary stay and costs.
Patients and methods: Fourty-eight pregnant patients at term with obstetrical indication for cesarean delivery were randomized in two groups: 24 were submitted to traditional cesarean and 24 to Misgav-Ladach technique. The outcomes included surgical time, bleeding, amount of sutures employed, pain intensity and some others adverse effects.
Results: The surgical time with Misgav-Ladach technique was shorter compared with traditional cesarean section, bleeding was consistently lesser and pain was also low. None adverse effects were registered in both groups.
Conclusion: Although short follow-up showed significant operative time reduction and less bleeding, longer follow-up should be desirable in order to confirm no abdominal adhesions.

REFERENCES

1. Frenk Mora J, Ruelas Barajas E, Tapia Conyer R, Quintanilla Rodríguez MA. Cesárea segura: lineamiento técnico. SSA, 2002;pp:1-48.

2. Stark M, Chavin Y, Kupferstzain C, Guedj P, Finkel AR. Evaluation of combination of procedures in caesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995;48(3):273-6.

3. Habek D. The Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;61:153-60.

4. Ayres-De-Campos D, Patricio B. Modifications to the Misgav-Ladach technique for cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 2000;7(4):326-7.

5. Seligman R. El método Misgav-Ladach: efecto máximo, daño mínimo. Revista Shalom 1999;2:142-6.

6. Darj E, Nordstrom ML. The Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:37-41.

7. Holmgreen G, Sjoholm L, Stark M. The Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:615-21.

8. Federici D, Lacelli B, Muggiasca A, Agarossi A, et al. Cesarean section using the Misgav-Ladach method. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997;57:273-9.

9. Bahmanyar ER, Boulvain M, Irion O. Non-closure of the peritoneum during cesarean section: long term follow-up of a randomized control trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185(6): S125.

10. Nagele F, Karas H, Spitzer D, Staudach A, et al. Closure or non closure of the visceral peritoneum at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1366-70.

11. Calleja Calderón VJ, Rodríguez Cardoso J, San Martín Herrasti JM, Sanz Carreño A. Cesárea e histerorrafia en un solo plano. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1994;62:304.

12. Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1108-11.

13. Tucker JM, Hauth JC, Hodgkins P, Owen J, Winkler CL. Trial of labor after one– or two– layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:545-6.

14. Sidiqqui M, Goldszmidt E, Shafagh F, Kingdom J, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:570-5.

15. Ellis H, Harrison W, Hugh TB. The healing of peritoneum under normal and pathological conditions. Br J Surg 1968;52:471-6.

16. Ellis H, Heddle R. Does the peritoneum need to be closed al laparotomy? Br J Surg 1977;64:733-6.

17. Banigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Cierre versus no cierre del peritoneo en la cesárea (Revisión Cochrane traducida). Biblioteca Cochrane Plus 2997 Issue 2 Chichester UK John Wiley and Sons, LTD.

18. Monk BJ, Berman ML, Montz EJ. Adhesions after extensive gynecologic surgery: clinical significance, etiology and prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;170:1396-1402.