Extraperitoneal Cesarean, is it Safe and Comfortable?

ABSTRACT We aimed to show that extraperitoneal cesarean delivery (EPCD) is more advantageous than trans peritoneal cesarean delivery (TPCD). Sixty cases analyzed either EPCD or TPCD were included in this study. Patients with suspected placental invasion anomalies (placenta accreta, increta or percreta), placenta previa, a history of midline uterine incision, multiple pregnanci es, previous cesarean section, previous major abdominal surgery, delivery before 34 weeks of gestation or fetal macrosomia (estimated fetal weight >4500 g) were excluded. The endpoints were the duration of the operation, nausea and vomiting during the operation, postoperative nausea and vomiting, the number of an algesic medications, postoperative shoulder pain, postoperative gas/stool discharge time, complete blood count (CBC), urinary dysfunction, and neonatal outcomes. Results TPCD patients suffered significantly more intraoperative nausea (10% vs. 33.3%, p:0.03) and postoperative vomiting (0% vs. 13.3%, p: 0.04) compared to TPCD group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative vomiting and postoperative nausea rates between the two groups (p: 0,282). The duration of the operation was shorter in TPCD than EPCD groups (25,5 minutes vs. 28,7 minutes, p=0.01). After the operation, significantly fewer analgesic drugs were used in the EPCD than the TPCD groups (p: 0.01). The duration between defecation and operation was significantly shorter in the EPCD group compared to TPCD group (p: 0,042). Postoperative shoulder pain and flatulating time were similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference in urinary symptoms after six weeks of the operation between the two groups (p:0,690). No significant difference was found for neonatal outcomes between each groups. EPCD reduces postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, nausea, vomiting, and bowel dysfunction in cesarean patients without an increase in significant complications.

___

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Driscoll AK. Births: Final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2019; 68: 1.

2. Gibbons L, Belizán J, Lauer J, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Rep 2010; 2010: 30.

3. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: final data 2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018; 67: 1-55.

4. Gedikbasi A, Akyol A, Ulker V, et al. Cesarean techniques in cases with one previous cesarean delivery: comparison of modified MisgavLadach and Pfannenstiel–Kerr. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283: 711-716.

5. Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, et al. Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, doubleblind equivalence trial. Ann Surg 2009; 249: 913.

6. Brown S, & Tiernan J. Transverse verses midline incisions for abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005.

7. Bickenbach KA, Karanicolas PJ, Ammori JB, et al. Up and down or side to side? A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of incision on outcomes after abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 2013; 206: 400.

8. Latzko W. Der extraperitoneale Kaiserschnitt. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1909; 22: 478- 482.

9. Wallace RL, Eglinton GS, Yonekura ML, et al. Extraperitoneal cesarean section: a surgical form of infection prophylaxis? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148: 172-177.

10. Hanson HB. Current use of the extraperitoneal cesarean section: a decade of experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149: 31-34.

11. Zabransky F, Grossmannova H. Extraperitoneal cesarean section ean alternative or routine? Ceska Gynekol 2001; 66: 1887-1889.

12. Zabransky F. Somer ecen observations on the extraperitoneal cesarean section. Zentralbl Gynakol 1985; 107: 574-576.

13. Tappauf C, Schest E, Reif P, et al. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a prospective randomize comparison of surgical morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 338.e1

14. Yeşilbaş C, Erenel H. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a retrospective analysis. Perinatal Journal 2017; 25: 38-42.

15. Tulandi T, Agdi M, Zarei A, et al. (2009). Adhesion development and morbidity after repeat cesarean delivery. Am J of Obstetand Gynecol 2009; 201: 56.e1:56.e6.

16. Guangyou Duan, Guiying Yang, Jing Peng, et al. Comparison of postoperative pain between patients who underwent primary and repeated cesarean section: a prospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol 2019; 19: 189.

17. Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, et al. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory; continence program in women (CPW) research group. Qual Life RES 1994; 3: 291-206.

18. Bjelic-Radisic V, Dorfer M, Tamussino K, et al. The incontinence outcome questionnaire: an instrument for assessing patient-reported outcomes after surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2007; 18: 1139-1149.

19. Cacciarelli RA. Extraperitoneal cesarean section; a new paravesical approach. Am J Surg 1949; 78: 371-373.

20. Norton JF. A paravesical extraperitoneal cesarean section technique; with an analysis of 160 paravesical extraperitoneal cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1946; 51: 519- 526.

21. Fauck M. Ambulatory cesarean section, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v1⁄4dvCXhQU0eqE&feature1⁄4youtube _gdata_player Access date 06.12.2011

22. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, et al. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 431-444.

23. Chou CY, Liang PC, Chen CA, et al. Cervical abscess with vaginal fistula after extraperitoneal cesarean section. J Formos Med Assoc 2007; 106: 1048-1051.

24. Mokgokong ET, Crichton D. Extraperitoneal lower segment cesarean section for infected cases: a reappraisal. S Afr Med J 1974; 48: 788-790.

25. Suharwardy, Sanaa, Carvalho, et al. Brendan Enhanced recovery after surgery for cesarean delivery. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2020; 32: 113-120
Eastern Journal of Medicine-Cover
  • ISSN: 1301-0883
  • Başlangıç: 1996
  • Yayıncı: ERBİL KARAMAN
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

EUS Accuracy Against MRCP for Detection of Pancreaticobiliary Lesions

Mustafa Zanyar AKKUZU, Engin ALTINTAŞ, Serkan YARAŞ, Osman ÖZDOĞAN, Enver ÜÇBİLEK, Fehmi ATEŞ, Orhan SEZGİN, Ferzan AYDIN, Hatice Rızaoğlu BALCI, Yaren DİRİK

Gastrıc Intestınal Metaplasıa and Covıd 19 Infectıon

Mesut AYDIN, Ahmet cumhur DÜLGER, Serhat ÖZER, Yaren DİRİK, Sıddık KESKİN, Canan DEMİR

Fixed Orthodontic Treatment of a Patient With Skeletal Class II Malocclusion with Infrazygomatic Anchorage and En-Masse Retraction

Saadet Çınarsoy CİĞERİM, Seda KOTAN, Gönül DİNÇ

Evaluation of Skin Prick Test Results In Patients With Atopic Dermatitis

Ömer KUTLU, Ahmet METİN

Does Cervical Length Predict the Successful Labor Induction in Term Nulliparous Women Who Had Unfavorable Cervix?

Gurcan TURKYILMAZ, Sebnem Erol TURKYILMAZ, Emircan ERTÜRK, Onur KARAASLAN

Sexual Function Disorders in Type 2 Diabetic Women; Cross-Sectional Study

MINE OZTÜRK, Saliha YILDIZ, Mustafa Sait GONEN

The Effect of Cachexia On Survival In Metastatic Gastric Cancer Patients Treated With Best Supportive Care

Ayşegül SAKİN, Mehmet Naci ALDEMİR

Surgeons Experience and Consistency To Determine Surgical Procedures For Hallux Valgus

Evrim SİRİN, Barış YILMAZ, Guzelali OZDEMİR, Erhan OKAY, Celaleddin BİLDİK, Dursun AK, Bülent EROL, Hasan Hilmi MURATLI

The Effect of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Therapy On Stress Urinary Incontinence Recurrence: A Randomized Prospective Study

Erbil KARAMAN, Ali KOLUSARI, Şeyhmus KAPLAN

The Effect of Body Mass Index On The Outcomes of Open Simple Prostatectomy

Ender Cem BULUT, Kasım ERTAŞ, Murat Yavuz Koparal, Serhat ÇETİN