medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2012, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2012; 80 (08)

Modified Misgav-Labach at a Tertiary Hospital

Martínez CDA, Barrios PE, Martínez RD

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 501-508
PDF size: 121.62 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: According to several studies from around the globe, the modified Misgav Ladach technique simplifies the surgical procedure for cesarean section, reduces operation time, costs, and complications, and optimizes obstetric and perinatal outcomes.
Objective: Compare obstetric outcomes between patients operated on using traditional cesarean section technique and those operated on using modified Misgav Ladach technique.
Patients and methods: The study included 49 patients operated on using traditional cesarean section technique and 47 patients operated on using modified Misgav Ladach technique to compare the outcomes in both surgical techniques.
Results: The modified Misgav Ladach technique was associated with more benefits than those of the traditional technique: less surgical bleeding, less operation time, less analgesic total doses, less rescue analgesic doses and less need of more than one analgesic drug.
Conclusion: The modified Misgav Ladach surgical technique was associated with better obstetric results than those of the traditional surgical technique; this concurs with the results reported by other national and international studies.


REFERENCES

  1. Holmgren G, Sjohlom L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: Method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 1999;78:615-621.

  2. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah AN, et al. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No: CD004662.Disponible en http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2/abstract.

  3. Xavier P, Ayres-De-Campos D, Reynolds A, et al. The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gyn Scand 2005;84(9):878-882.

  4. Li M, Zou L, Zhu J. Study on modification of the Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section. J Tongji Med Univ 2001;21(1):75-77.

  5. Heimann J, Hitschold T, Muller K, et al. Randomized trial of the modified Misgav-Ladach and the conventional Pfannenstiel techniques for cesarean section. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 2000;60:242-250.

  6. Eisenkop SM, Richman R, Platt LD et al. Urinary tract injury during cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:591-596.

  7. Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, et al. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:1089-1092.

  8. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: A randomized comparison of two techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:292.e1-292.e6.

  9. Baksu A. The effect of placental removal method and site of uterine repair on post-cesarean endometritis and operative blood loss. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:266-269.

  10. Orji EO, Olaleye AO, Loto OM, et al. A randomized controlled trial of uterine exteriorization and non-exteriorization at cesarean section. Aust N Zel Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:570-574.

  11. Siddiqui M, Goldszmidt E, Fallah S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:570-575.

  12. Tamayo GJG, Sereno CJA, Huape AMS. Comparación entre cesárea Misgav Ladach y cesárea tradicional. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008;76(2):75-80.

  13. Philips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. Levels of evidence (March 2009) from the CEBM. Centre for evidence based medicine. Disponible en: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com