Parellada JO, Sarria CM

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 330-342
PDF size: 171.78 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: caesarean section is one of the oldest surgical procedures and most contemporary midwifery practice.
Objective: to evaluate the results of Misgav-Ladach cesarean compared to conventional cesarean.
Methods: a retrospective case-control was conducted. 178 pregnant women at term were studied. They had live singleton fetus and indication of cesarean by study group. The parameters and variables assessed were overall complication rate, fetal extraction time, surgical time, amount of intra operative bleeding, surgical accident, injury to the fetus, use of sutures and postoperative morbidity. The statistical analysis covered Homogeneity tests, χ² test, Student t test and Odds Ratio. Statistical significance was p ‹ 0.05. Confidence intervals were calculated with 95% confidence.
Results: the overall complication rate in caesarean section for the Misgav-Ladach method was 3.9%, in the conventional technique it was 13.5 %, OR: 3.87, CI (1.59, 9.08). The average time in fetal extraction in Misgav-Ladach cesarean was 1.9 (SD ± 0.2 min) and 2.8 (SD ± 0.3 min) (p ‹ 0.05) in conventional caesarean section. The surgical mean time was 13.8 min lower in Misgav-Ladach cesarean (p ‹ 0, 05). The amount of bleeding, use of sutures and analgesics showed advantageous results in simplified cesarean section; they were lower with significant differences between the groups (p ‹ 0,05). Statistical association was observed between the recovery of intestinal transit, the presence of postoperative fever and wound hematoma with the type of surgery performed (p ‹ 0.05).
Conclusions: Misgav-Ladach cesarean offers advantages which benefit the recovery of patients and foster an environment of security which is appropriate to the actions of the surgical team.

REFERENCES

1. Delgado GG. Algunos aspectos históricos de la operación cesárea. Cuad Hist Salud Pub. 1998;84:14-26.

2. Sopeña IA. La cesárea abdominal y sus problemas. Madrid: Ficheros Médicos; 1967. p. 5-16.

3. Hellman LM, Pritchard JA. Williams obstetrics. 14th ed. New York: Ed. Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1971. p. 1163-90.

4. Ventura W. Estudio comparativo entre cesárea tipo Misgav-Ladach y cesárea tipo Kerr. An Fac med. 2009;70(3):199-204.

5. Li M, Zou L, Zhu J. Study on modification of the Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section. Pub MedJTongji Med Univ. 2001;21(1):75-7.

6. Pagés G. Cirugías Abdominales obstétrico ginecológicas sin cierre de peritoneos. Rev Obstet Ginecol Venez. 2002;62(1).

7. Stark M. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Internal J Gyn Obst; 1995:273-6.

8. Joura E. Letter: Non-closure of peritoneum and adhesions: The repeat cesarean section. Acta Obstet Ginecol Scand. 2001;80:286.

9. Escribano J. Comparación de costes de la cesárea mediante técnicas de MisgavLdach y convencional con incisión de Pfannestiel. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2004;47(7):323-9.

10. Novoa S. Cesárea tipo pelosi. Ginecol Obstet (Perú). 2002;48(4):225-9.

11. Magdaleno F. De la Calle M. Reque JA. González A. Cesárea de Misgav-Ladach. Descripción y análisis del método. Actualidad Obstétrico Ginecológica. 2000;3:155-62.

12. Mc Donald MN. Adhesion formation and prevention after peritoneal injury and repair in the rabbit. J Reprod Med. 1998;33:436-9.

13. Ling FW. Adhesion formation associated with the use of absorbable staples in comparison to other types of peritoneal injury. Int J Gynecologic Obstetric. 1989;30:361-6.

14. Milewczyk M. Experimental studies on the development of peritoneal adhesions in cases of suturing and no suturing of the parietal peritoneum in rabbits. Ginecol Col. 1989;60:1-6.

15. Bamigboye AA. Hofmeyr GJ. Cierre versus no cierre del peritoneo en la cesárea. La biblioteca de Cochrane Plus; 2008. p. 2.

16. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007.