medigraphic.com

2013, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med MD 2013; 4.5 (4)

Misgav Ladach cesarean section. An evidence-based analysis

Martínez-Ceccopieri DA, González-Moreno J, Barrios-Prieto E, Panduro-Barón JG, Fajardo-Dueñas S, Martínez-Ríos D

Language: Spanish
References: 78
Page: 251-261
PDF size: 631.05 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The cesarean operation is the most frequent abdominal surgery performed in Mexico and the world. The Misgav Ladach technique has proved offering benefits on short and long term, improving the maternal obstetrician results without compromising the perinatal results, as well as a reduction in supplies and hospital costs.
Objective: To perform a systemic review of the available literature on the Misgav Ladach cesarean section surgery.
Material and Methods: We performed a systemic review of the present literature available on the Misgav Ladach surgery on the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as a manual search of the references included on the studies.
Results: 41 random clinical essays, 5 not randomized studies, 5 analytics and 1 descriptive study were identified. The available evidence was analyzed on each of the aspects regarding the Misgav Ladach technique.
Conclusion: The literature reviewed shows that the Misgav Ladach is associated to better obstetrician results on comparison with the traditional Pfannestiel-Kerr technique.


REFERENCES

  1. Todman D. A history of cesarean section: From ancient world to the modern era. Aust N Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 47: 357-361.

  2. Young JH. The history of cesarean section. London: Lewis, 1994.

  3. Kehrer FA. Ueber ein Modificirtes Verfahren beim Kaiserschnitt. Arch Gynaek 1882; 19:177-209.

  4. Kerr JMM. The technic of cesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1926; 12: 726.

  5. Elliot P. A critical review of the Pfannenstiel incision in obstetrics and gynaecology. Aust N Zel J Obstet Gynaecol 1964; 4: 43-46.

  6. Joel-Cohen S. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. New techniques based on time and motion studies. William Heinemann Medical Books, 1972; 170.

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

  8. Federici D, Lacelli B, Muggiasca L, Agarosi A, Cipolla L, Conti M. Cesarean section using the Misgav Ladach method. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1997; 57: 273-279.

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

  10. Wood RM, Simon H, Oz Ali-Utku. Pelosi-Type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1999; 44: 788-95.

  11. Eisenkop SM, Richman R, Platt LD, Paul RH. Urinary tract injury during cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 591-6.

  12. Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at Cesarean necessary. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (6): 1089-92.

  13. Myers SA, Bennett TL. Incidence of significant adhesions at repeat cesarean section and the relationship to method of prior peritoneal closure. J Reprod Med 2005; 50 (9): 659-662.

  14. Rajasekar D, Hall M. Urinary tract injuries during obstetric intervention. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 731– 4.

  15. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Bufkin L, Field K, et. al. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: A randomized clinical trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 109: 448-452.

  16. Young RC. Myocytes, myometrium, and uterine contractions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007; 1101: 72-84.

  17. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Siesto G, Loverro G, Bolis P. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 292.e1-292.e6.

  18. Jelsema RD, Wittingen JA, Vander Kolk KJ. Continuous, non-locking single-layer repair of the low-transverse uterine incision. J Reprod Med 1993; 38: 393-6.

  19. Clark SL, Cesarean section. In: Hankins GDV, CLark SL, Cunningham FG, Gilstrap LC III, editors Operative Obstetrics. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange; 1995 pp 301-332.

  20. Enkin MW, Wilkinson C. Single versus two layer suturing for closing the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; 1.

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

  22. Durnwald C, Mercer B. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after singlelayer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 925-929.

  23. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 1326-30.

  24. Clark SL. Needles, sutures and knots, in: Hankins GDV, CLark SL, Cunningham FG, Gilstrap LC III, editors Operative Obstetrics. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange; 1995 pp 1-21.

  25. Wound healing, chronic wounds http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic477.htm [Accessed 5 January 2007].

  26. Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, Blumenfeld Y, Stone JL. Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture. J Mat Fet Neo Med 2006; 19 (10) ProQuest Medical Library 639.

  27. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, Gauthier RJ. interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 1199-1202.

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

  29. Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One-versus twolayer closure of a low transverse cesarean: The next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 16-18.

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

  31. Hayakawa H, Itakura A, Mitsui T, Okada M, et al. Methods for myometrium closure and other factors impacting effects on cesarean section scars of the uterine segment detected by the ultrasonography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85 (4): 429-434.

  32. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347: 281-4.

  33. Hamar B, Saber BS, Cackrovic M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery. A Randomized controlled trial of One- and Two-Layer closure. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (4): 808-813.

  34. Colin AW, Laxmi VB. Rupture of the primigravid uterus: A review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007; 62 (5): 327-334.

  35. Ofili-Yebovi D, Ben-Nagi J, et al. Deficient lowersegment Cesarean section scars: prevalence and risk factors Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 72–77.

  36. Stamillo DM, Defranco E, et al. Short interpregnancy interval. Risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth afer cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (5): 1075-1081.

  37. DeRoux SJ, Prendergast NC, Adsay NV. Spontaneous uterine rupture with fatal hemoperitoneum due to placenta accreta precreta: A case report and review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1999; 18: 82-86.

  38. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP. Evidencebased surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1607-17.

  39. Hidar S, et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;117:179 –182.

  40. Ramadani H. Cesarean section intraoperative blood loss and mode of placental separation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87: 114 –118.

  41. Morales M, Ceysens G, Jastrow N, et al. Spontaneus delivery or manual removal of the placental during caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2004; 111: 908-912.

  42. Dehbashi S, et al. Int Gynaecol Obstet 2004;86:12–15.

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

  44. Yancey MK, Clark P, Du􀀂 P. The frequency of glove contamination during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83: 538-42.

  45. Stark M. Technique of Caesarean section: the Misgav Ladach method. In: Popkin DR, Peddle LJ, eds. Women's health today: perspectives on current research and clinical practice. Proc. XIVWorld Congress Gynecol Obstet: Montreal. NewYork and London: Parthenon, 1994: 81–5.

  46. Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr GJ. Reparación extraabdominal versus reparación intraabdominal de la incisión uterina en la cesárea (Revisión Cochrane traducida). En: The Cochrane Library, 2006 Número 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  47. Coutinho IC et. al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(3): 639-647.

  48. Orji EO et. al. A randomized controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at cesarean section. Aust N Zel Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 48: 570-574.

  49. Siddiqui M. 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(3): 570- 575.

  50. Williams DC. The peritoneum: A plea for change in attitude towards this membrane. Br JSurg 1955; 42: 401–5.

  51. EllisH, HarrisonW, Hugh TB. The healing of peritoneum under normal and pathological conditions. Br J Surg 1965; 52: 471–6.

  52. Hubbard TB, Khan MZ, Carag VR, Alberts VE, Hricko GM. The pathology of peritoneal repair: Its relation to the formation of adhesions. Ann Surg 1967; 165: 909–16.

  53. Duffy DM, diZerega GS. Is peritoneal closure necessary? ObstetGynecol Surv1994; 49: 817–22.

  54. McDonald MN,Elkins TE,Wortham GF,Stovall TG,Ling FW, McNeeley SGJ. Adhesion formation and prevention after peritoneal injury and repair in the rabbit. J Reprod Med1988; 33: 436–9.

  55. Elkins TE, Stovall TG, Warren J, Ling FW, Meyer NL. A histologic evaluation of peritoneal injury and repair: implications for adhesion formation. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 225-228.

  56. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Cierre versus no cierre del peritoneo en la cesárea En: The Cochrane Library, 2006 Número 1. Chichester, UK

  57. Lyell DJ et al. Peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 275-280.

  58. Yiyang Z et al. Closure versus nonclosure of the peritoneum at cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 94: 103-107.

  59. Zareian Z, Zareian P. Non-closure versus closure of peritoneum during cesarean section: A randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol 2006; 128: 267-269.

  60. Ellis H. The aetiology of post-operative abdominal adhesions. An experimental study. Br J Surg 1962;50:10–6.

  61. Nabhan AF. Long term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008; 100: 69-75.

  62. Højberg KE, Aagaard J, Laursen H, Diab L, Secher N." Closure versus non-closure of peritoneum at cesarean section-evaluation of pain', Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1998; 77:7, 741-745.

  63. Shahin AY, Osman AM. Parietal peritoneal closure and persistent postcesarean pain. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009; 104: 135-139.

  64. Lee-Parritz A. Surgical techniques for cesarean delivery: What are the best practices?. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 47(2): 286-298.

  65. Rath AM, Chevrel JP. The healing of laparotomies: a review of the literature. Part 1. Physiologic and pathologic aspects. Hernia 1998; 2: 145–149

  66. Douglas DM. The healing of aponeurotic incisions. Br J Surg 1952; 40: 79–84.

  67. Hogston P. Suture choice in general gynaecological surgery. The Obstet Gynaecol. 2001(3); 3: 127-131.

  68. Rucinski J, Margolis M, Panagopoulos G, Wise L. Closure of the abdominal midline fascia: Metaanalysis delineates the optimal technique. Am Surg 2001; 67: 421–426.

  69. Luijendijk RW. Incisional hernia; risk factors, prevention, and repair. Thesis. Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Scheveningen: Drukkerji Edauw and Johannissen, 2000.

  70. Wissing J, van Vroonhoven TJMV, Eeftinck Schattenkerk M, et al. Fascia closure after laparotomy: Results of a randomized trial. Br J Surg 1987; 74: 738–741.

  71. Hodgson et al. The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure. Ann Surg 2000; 231(3): 436-442.

  72. Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P, McKenzie- McHarg K, Ayers S. Surgical techniques used during cesarean section operations: Results of a national survey of practice in the UK. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol 2002; 102: 120-126.

  73. Anderson ER, Gates S. Técnicas y materiales para el cierre de la pared abdominal en la cesárea En: The Cochrane Library, 2006 Número 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  74. Chelmow D, Rodriguez EJ, Sabatini MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: A Meta-Analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:974-980.

  75. Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW. Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples versus subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 1997;42:627-30.

  76. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. Tratamiento en: Medicina Basada en la evidencia. Como practicar y enseñar la MBE. ELSEVIER Churchill Livingstone 2006. pag. 115-175.

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

  78. Martinez-Ceccopieri DA, Barrios-Prieto E, Martinez-Ríos D. Cesárea Misgav Ladach modificada en un hospital de tercer nivel. Ginecol Obtet Mex2012; 80(8): 501-508.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com