Comparison of classic single-layer uterin suture and double-layer purse-string suture techniques for uterus closure in terms of postoperative short-term uterine isthmocele: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

IF 1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Pub Date : 2023-09-04 DOI:10.4274/tjod.galenos.2023.90522
Elif Yıldız, Burcu Timur
{"title":"Comparison of classic single-layer uterin suture and double-layer purse-string suture techniques for uterus closure in terms of postoperative short-term uterine isthmocele: A prospective randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Elif Yıldız,&nbsp;Burcu Timur","doi":"10.4274/tjod.galenos.2023.90522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the short-term results of classic single-layer uterine closure and double-layer purse-string uterine closure (Turan technique) techniques in cesarean section in terms of the incidence of ischiocele formation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a prospective randomized controlled trial study. Participants undergoing first-time cesarean delivery were randomized into two groups. Fifty-eight participants were included in the double-layered uterine closure group (study group), while 53 participants were randomized into the classical single-layered uterine closure group (control group). For comparison of isthmocele formation, transvaginal ultrasound examination was planned in all patients 6 weeks after surgery. The operation data,the formation of isthmocele, its dimensions and volume were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 111 women were included in the study. The incidence of ischiocele at 6 weeks after birth was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.128). Isthmosel was detected in 20.8% of single-layer closures, and this rate was determined as 10.3% in the purse technique. In the Kerr incision made during surgery, the uterine incision size did not differ in either group, but the uterine incision length after suturing was significantly smaller in the purse technique compared with the other group (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The incidence of ischiocele formation after cesarean section and the depth of the ischiocele was independent of the uterotomy closure technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":45340,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"20 3","pages":"206-213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/90/c1/TJOG-20-206.PMC10478730.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2023.90522","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the short-term results of classic single-layer uterine closure and double-layer purse-string uterine closure (Turan technique) techniques in cesarean section in terms of the incidence of ischiocele formation.

Materials and methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial study. Participants undergoing first-time cesarean delivery were randomized into two groups. Fifty-eight participants were included in the double-layered uterine closure group (study group), while 53 participants were randomized into the classical single-layered uterine closure group (control group). For comparison of isthmocele formation, transvaginal ultrasound examination was planned in all patients 6 weeks after surgery. The operation data,the formation of isthmocele, its dimensions and volume were recorded.

Results: A total of 111 women were included in the study. The incidence of ischiocele at 6 weeks after birth was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.128). Isthmosel was detected in 20.8% of single-layer closures, and this rate was determined as 10.3% in the purse technique. In the Kerr incision made during surgery, the uterine incision size did not differ in either group, but the uterine incision length after suturing was significantly smaller in the purse technique compared with the other group (p<0.001).

Conclusion: The incidence of ischiocele formation after cesarean section and the depth of the ischiocele was independent of the uterotomy closure technique.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经典单层子宫缝合技术与双层荷包缝合技术在术后短期子宫峡部闭合中的比较:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。
目的:比较剖宫产术中经典单层闭宫术与双层包绳闭宫术(图兰术)短期内坐骨膨出发生率的差异。材料与方法:本研究为前瞻性随机对照试验研究。首次剖宫产的参与者被随机分为两组。58名受试者被纳入双层子宫闭合组(研究组),53名受试者被随机分为经典单层子宫闭合组(对照组)。为比较峡部膨出情况,所有患者术后6周均行阴道超声检查。记录手术资料、峡层的形成、尺寸和体积。结果:共有111名女性被纳入研究。出生后6周坐骨膨出发生率组间差异无统计学意义(p=0.128)。在单层闭孔中,地峡虫的检出率为20.8%,而在钱包技术中,这一检出率为10.3%。术中切开Kerr切口,两组子宫切口大小无差异,但缝合后子宫切口长度明显小于另一组(p结论:剖宫产术后坐骨膨出发生率及坐骨膨出深度与子宫切开闭合技术无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Maternal serum apelin-13 levels in early- and late-onset preeclampsia. Retrospective analysis of the indications, methods, and complications of pregnancy termination. The effect of gonadotropin gap for non-growing follicles in poor ovarian response: Might this be a new strategy? Association between serum copeptin levels and non-obese normoglycemic polycystic ovary syndrome: A case control study. Comparison of obstetric, neonatal, and surgical outcomes of emergency and planned deliveries in pregnancies complicated by placenta previa and in subgroups with and without placenta accreta spectrum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1