Greener Journal of Medical Sciences

Excellence and Timeliness

  
  

Choose Language

Advertisements


Nonye-Enyidah and Eli

Greener Journal of  Medical Sciences Vol. 8 (2), pp. 019-026, March 2018.

 ISSN: 2276-7797  

Research Article

Manuscript Number: 031218044


(DOI: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJMS.2018.2.031218044)

 

Influence of Blunt Versus Sharp Expansion of Uterine Incision on Degree of Intraoperative Blood Loss at Caesarean Section

 

 

NONYE-ENYIDAH E1, ELI S2

 

 

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Braithwaite Memorial and Specialist Hospital

2University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital


Abstract


Background:

Caesarean section is the most common major operation performed on women. Although caesarean section is much safe today due to improved techniques, anaesthesia, blood transfusion services and antibiotics, there are still major intra operative and post operative complications. Haemorrhage is one of the short term morbidities following caesarean section and may lead to maternal mortality.

Aim:

To determine which method of expansion of uterine incision at caesarean section (sharp and blunt) is associated with a reduction in blood loss.

Method:

A prospective randomized study conducted among booked antenatal women admitted in antenatal ward for elective caesarean section at the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital (UPTH) over a period of nine months. The eligible 354 women (177 for each group) were counseled for participation in the study and informed consent obtained. A profoma was prepared for each participant. Blood loss estimation (EBL) was undertaken using both volumetric and gravimetric methods. The data was collected and analyzed using EPI INFO statistical software.

Results:

The mean age of women in blunt group was 31.6 years and 31.7 years in sharp group. All the women had formal education. The mean parity in blunt group was 1.4 and 1.5 in sharp group. The mean gestational age for both groups was 38.1 (SD 1.0) weeks. The mean EBL during the study period was 594.4 (SD 167.0) mls. The mean EBL for sharp group was 602.3 (SD 176.6) mls and 586.4 (SD 157.3) mls for blunt group. The mean EBL for women in blunt group who had uterine extension was 889.3 (SD 100.3) mls while that of sharp was 944.4 (SD190.9) mls.

Conclusion:

Caesarean section is a common obstetric operation and needs to be made as safe as possible. Although sharp expansion of the lower segment transverse uterine incision resulted in more blood loss, the difference is not statistically significant. The difference in blood loss following inadvertent extension between the two groups is statistically significant. There was no need for a blood transfusion.

Keywords: Caesarean section, blunt and sharp expansions, term pregnancies, estimated blood loss


Post-review Rundown

View/get involved, click [Post-Review Page]


References


Ebeigbe PN, Ilesanmi AO. Caesarean section. In: Okpere E. (Ed). Clinical Obstetrics. University of Benin Press, Nigeria, 2003; 404-413.

 

Jaiyesimi RAK, Ojo OE. Caesarean section. In: Okonofua F, Odunsi K (Eds). Contemporary obstetrics and gynaecology for developing countries. Women’s Health and Action Research Centre, Nigeria, 2003; 592-619.

 

Muthir JT, Daru PH, Ujah IAO. Elective caesarean section at the Jos University Teaching Hospital. Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2005; 22 (1): 39-41.

 

Okonta PI, Otoide VO, Okogberin SA. Caesarean section at University of Benin Teaching Hospital revisited. Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2003; 20(1): 63-66.

 

Boley JP. The history of caesarean section. Journal of Canadian Medical Association, 1991; 145(4): 319-22.

 

Lurie S, Glezerman M. The history of caesarean section technique. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2003; 189 (6): 1803-1806.

 

Uzoigwe SA, Jeremiah I. Developments in caesarean section techniques: A review. Nigerian Journal of Medicine, 2006; 15(1): 24-29.

 

Baskett TF, Calder AA, Arulkumaran S. Caesarean section. In: Baskett TF, Calder AA, Arulkumaran S (Eds). Munro Kerr’s Operative Obstetrics. 11th Edition. Saunders Elsevier, London, 2007; 151-166.

 

Garriguez HJ. The improved caesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1983; 16: 33.

 

Ezechi OC, Nwokoro CA, Kalu BKE, Njokanma FO, Okeke GCE. Caesarean Morbidity and Mortality in a Private Hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. Tropical Journal of Obstetrics   and Gynaecology, 2002; 19(2): 97-100.

 

Kerr JMM. The technique of caesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1926; 12: 729-734.

 

Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure. One versus two layers. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1992; 167: 1108-1111.

 

Tucker JM, Hauth JC, Hodgkins P et al. Trial of labour after one or two layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1993; 168: 545-561.

 

Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One versus two layer closure of a low transverse caesarean section: the next pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1997; 89(1): 16-18.

 

Rodriguez AI, Portei KB, O’Brien WF. Blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision in low segment transverse caesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1994; 171:1022-1025.

 

Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Bufkin L, Field K, Roberts WE, Martin JN Jr. Intraoperative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery; a randomized clinical trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2002; 109(4): 448-452.

 

Orion O, Luzuy F, Beguin F. Non closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1996; 106: 690-694.

 

Stark M, Finkel AR. Comparison between Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in caesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1994; 53: 121-122.

 

Hofmeyr J, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for caesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2009; 201: 431.

 

Anorlu R, Maholwana B, Hofmeyr G. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database systematic review, 2008; CD004737.

 

Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S et al. The role of uterine closure on the risk of uterine rupture. Gynaecology. 2010; 116: 43.

 

Xu LL, Chau AMT, Zuschmann A. Blunt versus sharp uterine expansion of lower segment caesarean section delivery: a systematic review with meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2013; 208(62): 1-8.

 

Jayasundara PMCS, Rajapakse RNG. Complications of blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision in the lower segment caesarean section. A randomized controlled trial. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2016; 37(4): 60-64.

 

Saad AF, Rahman M, Constantine MM, Saade GR. Blunt versus sharp uterine incision expansion during low transverse caesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2014; 211(6): 684: 1-11.

 

Cheong Y, Premkumar G, Metwally M et al. To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, 2009; 147:3.

 

Beazley JM, Caesarean section. In: Turnbull A, Chamberlain G (Eds). Obstetrics. Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1989; 857-865.

 

Khan FA, Khan M, Ali A, Chohan U. Estimation of blood loss during caesarean section audit. Journal of Parkistan Medical Association. 2006; 56: 572; 1-8.

 

Morgan Jr GE, Mikhail MS, Murray MJ. Fluid management and transfusion. In: Strauss M, Lebowitz H, Boyle PJ (Eds). Clinical anaesthesiology, 4th Edition. Mc GrawHill companies USA. 2006; 690-707.

 

American college of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists educational bulletin. Postpartum haemorrhage. International Journal of Gynaecology and obstetrics, 1998; 61(1): 79-86.

 

Walsh CA, Manias T, Brockelsby J. Relationship between haemoglobin change and estimated blood loss after delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2007; 114: 1447-1448.


Call for Papers

Call for Scholarly Articles


Authors from around the world are invited to send scholary articles that suits the scope of this journal. The journal is currently open to submissions and will process and publish articles monthly in two yearly issues.


The journal is centered on quality and goes about its processes in a very timely fashion. Seasoned editors/reviewers will be consulted to review each article(s), profer quality evaluations and polish the articles with expertise before publication.


Simply send your article(s) as an e-mail attachment to manuscripts@acad.gjournals.org or manuscripts.igj@gmail.com.



Advertisements


Search

Login Form

Other Journals


Newsletter