Transverse uterine incision closure: One versus two layers
OBJECTIVE: Closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with one layer of suture results in less operating time, better hemostasis, and less infectious morbidity than a two-layer closure. STUDY DESIGN: At our institution 906 women were randomized to closure of a low transverse cesarean incision wit...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1992-10, Vol.167 (4), p.1108-1111 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1111 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1108 |
| container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
| container_volume | 167 |
| creator | Hauth, John C. Owen, John Davis, Richard O. |
| description | OBJECTIVE: Closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with one layer of suture results in less operating time, better hemostasis, and less infectious morbidity than a two-layer closure.
STUDY DESIGN: At our institution 906 women were randomized to closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with either one continuous layer of a locking No. 1 chromic suture and a CTX needle (
n = 457) or two continuous layers of No. 1 chromic suture with the first layer locked (
n = 449). The Student
t test, χ
2 test of proportion, and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare groups of patients.
RESULTS: A one-layer closure required less operative time, 43.8 versus 47.5 minutes (
p = 0.0003).Fewer additional uterine hemostatic sutures were required in 369 women in whom either the one- (
n = 179) or the two-layer (
n = 190) closure did not achieve hemostasis (
p = 0.046). Endometritis was similar in both groups, 83 (22%) in the one-layer group versus 65 (18%) in the two-layer group (
p = 0.17). In no outcome assessment was the two-layer closure superior to the one-layer closure.
CONCLUSION: We recommend a one-layer closure when its use is anatomically feasible. (
Am J OBstetGYnecol 1992;167:1108–11.) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0002-9378(12)80048-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73283980</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002937812800482</els_id><sourcerecordid>73283980</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-4466f9e0ec3a00821ba416b6d358f7d4be914678fe284fafcd1f92ddc96482ea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMotVZ_QmEPInpYTbLZbNKLSPEFhR6s55BmJxDZ7tZkt9J_b7Yt9ehpmJlvHnwIjQm-J5jwhw-MMU1lVohbQu8Exkyk9AQNCZZFygUXp2h4RM7RRQhffUolHaABYSRnGA_RZOF1HTbgAyRdC97VkLjauOCaOjFVEzoPk2Qeqz3ThaT9aZJKb2Nyic6srgJcHeIIfb48L6Zv6Wz--j59mqWGUdqmjHFuJWAwmcZYULLUjPAlL7Nc2KJkS5CE8UJYoIJZbU1JrKRlaSRngoLORuhmv3ftm-8OQqtWLhioKl1D0wVVZFRkUuAI5nvQ-CYED1atvVtpv1UEq96Z2jlTvRBFqNo5UzTOjQ8HuuUKyr-pvaTYvz70dTC6stFYFHTEGM9yIvOIPe4xiDI2DrwKxkFtoHQeTKvKxv3zyC9374gL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73283980</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Transverse uterine incision closure: One versus two layers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hauth, John C. ; Owen, John ; Davis, Richard O.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hauth, John C. ; Owen, John ; Davis, Richard O.</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE: Closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with one layer of suture results in less operating time, better hemostasis, and less infectious morbidity than a two-layer closure.
STUDY DESIGN: At our institution 906 women were randomized to closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with either one continuous layer of a locking No. 1 chromic suture and a CTX needle (
n = 457) or two continuous layers of No. 1 chromic suture with the first layer locked (
n = 449). The Student
t test, χ
2 test of proportion, and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare groups of patients.
RESULTS: A one-layer closure required less operative time, 43.8 versus 47.5 minutes (
p = 0.0003).Fewer additional uterine hemostatic sutures were required in 369 women in whom either the one- (
n = 179) or the two-layer (
n = 190) closure did not achieve hemostasis (
p = 0.046). Endometritis was similar in both groups, 83 (22%) in the one-layer group versus 65 (18%) in the two-layer group (
p = 0.17). In no outcome assessment was the two-layer closure superior to the one-layer closure.
CONCLUSION: We recommend a one-layer closure when its use is anatomically feasible. (
Am J OBstetGYnecol 1992;167:1108–11.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(12)80048-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1415400</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOGAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cesarean incision closure ; Cesarean Section ; Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation ; Endometritis - etiology ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Female ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Hemostatic Techniques ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Obstetrical techniques ; Postoperative Complications ; Pregnancy ; Surgical Wound Infection ; Suture Techniques</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1992-10, Vol.167 (4), p.1108-1111</ispartof><rights>1992 Mosby</rights><rights>1993 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-4466f9e0ec3a00821ba416b6d358f7d4be914678fe284fafcd1f92ddc96482ea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-4466f9e0ec3a00821ba416b6d358f7d4be914678fe284fafcd1f92ddc96482ea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937812800482$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,3537,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=4635195$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1415400$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hauth, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Owen, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Richard O.</creatorcontrib><title>Transverse uterine incision closure: One versus two layers</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE: Closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with one layer of suture results in less operating time, better hemostasis, and less infectious morbidity than a two-layer closure.
STUDY DESIGN: At our institution 906 women were randomized to closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with either one continuous layer of a locking No. 1 chromic suture and a CTX needle (
n = 457) or two continuous layers of No. 1 chromic suture with the first layer locked (
n = 449). The Student
t test, χ
2 test of proportion, and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare groups of patients.
RESULTS: A one-layer closure required less operative time, 43.8 versus 47.5 minutes (
p = 0.0003).Fewer additional uterine hemostatic sutures were required in 369 women in whom either the one- (
n = 179) or the two-layer (
n = 190) closure did not achieve hemostasis (
p = 0.046). Endometritis was similar in both groups, 83 (22%) in the one-layer group versus 65 (18%) in the two-layer group (
p = 0.17). In no outcome assessment was the two-layer closure superior to the one-layer closure.
CONCLUSION: We recommend a one-layer closure when its use is anatomically feasible. (
Am J OBstetGYnecol 1992;167:1108–11.)</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cesarean incision closure</subject><subject>Cesarean Section</subject><subject>Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation</subject><subject>Endometritis - etiology</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Hemostatic Techniques</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Obstetrical techniques</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection</subject><subject>Suture Techniques</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMotVZ_QmEPInpYTbLZbNKLSPEFhR6s55BmJxDZ7tZkt9J_b7Yt9ehpmJlvHnwIjQm-J5jwhw-MMU1lVohbQu8Exkyk9AQNCZZFygUXp2h4RM7RRQhffUolHaABYSRnGA_RZOF1HTbgAyRdC97VkLjauOCaOjFVEzoPk2Qeqz3ThaT9aZJKb2Nyic6srgJcHeIIfb48L6Zv6Wz--j59mqWGUdqmjHFuJWAwmcZYULLUjPAlL7Nc2KJkS5CE8UJYoIJZbU1JrKRlaSRngoLORuhmv3ftm-8OQqtWLhioKl1D0wVVZFRkUuAI5nvQ-CYED1atvVtpv1UEq96Z2jlTvRBFqNo5UzTOjQ8HuuUKyr-pvaTYvz70dTC6stFYFHTEGM9yIvOIPe4xiDI2DrwKxkFtoHQeTKvKxv3zyC9374gL</recordid><startdate>199210</startdate><enddate>199210</enddate><creator>Hauth, John C.</creator><creator>Owen, John</creator><creator>Davis, Richard O.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199210</creationdate><title>Transverse uterine incision closure: One versus two layers</title><author>Hauth, John C. ; Owen, John ; Davis, Richard O.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-4466f9e0ec3a00821ba416b6d358f7d4be914678fe284fafcd1f92ddc96482ea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cesarean incision closure</topic><topic>Cesarean Section</topic><topic>Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation</topic><topic>Endometritis - etiology</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Hemostatic Techniques</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Obstetrical techniques</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection</topic><topic>Suture Techniques</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hauth, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Owen, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Richard O.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hauth, John C.</au><au>Owen, John</au><au>Davis, Richard O.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Transverse uterine incision closure: One versus two layers</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1992-10</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>167</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1108</spage><epage>1111</epage><pages>1108-1111</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><coden>AJOGAH</coden><abstract>OBJECTIVE: Closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with one layer of suture results in less operating time, better hemostasis, and less infectious morbidity than a two-layer closure.
STUDY DESIGN: At our institution 906 women were randomized to closure of a low transverse cesarean incision with either one continuous layer of a locking No. 1 chromic suture and a CTX needle (
n = 457) or two continuous layers of No. 1 chromic suture with the first layer locked (
n = 449). The Student
t test, χ
2 test of proportion, and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare groups of patients.
RESULTS: A one-layer closure required less operative time, 43.8 versus 47.5 minutes (
p = 0.0003).Fewer additional uterine hemostatic sutures were required in 369 women in whom either the one- (
n = 179) or the two-layer (
n = 190) closure did not achieve hemostasis (
p = 0.046). Endometritis was similar in both groups, 83 (22%) in the one-layer group versus 65 (18%) in the two-layer group (
p = 0.17). In no outcome assessment was the two-layer closure superior to the one-layer closure.
CONCLUSION: We recommend a one-layer closure when its use is anatomically feasible. (
Am J OBstetGYnecol 1992;167:1108–11.)</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>1415400</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0002-9378(12)80048-2</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
| ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1992-10, Vol.167 (4), p.1108-1111 |
| issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73283980 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Cesarean incision closure Cesarean Section Delivery. Postpartum. Lactation Endometritis - etiology Evaluation Studies as Topic Female Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Hemostatic Techniques Humans Medical sciences Obstetrical techniques Postoperative Complications Pregnancy Surgical Wound Infection Suture Techniques |
| title | Transverse uterine incision closure: One versus two layers |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T16%3A28%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Transverse%20uterine%20incision%20closure:%20One%20versus%20two%20layers&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Hauth,%20John%20C.&rft.date=1992-10&rft.volume=167&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1108&rft.epage=1111&rft.pages=1108-1111&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft.coden=AJOGAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0002-9378(12)80048-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73283980%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73283980&rft_id=info:pmid/1415400&rft_els_id=S0002937812800482&rfr_iscdi=true |