We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Parietal peritoneal closure versus non-closure at caesarean section: which technique is feasible to perform?
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate short-term effects of closure versus non-closure of the parietal peritoneum at caesarean section.
METHODS: A randomized controlled study of women undergoing caesarean section was conducted at the obstetrics department of a research and education hospital between October 2010 and May 2011. Patients were randomly assigned to have closure of parietal peritoneal layer (Group I, n = 55), and non-closure of parietal peritoneal layer (Control, Group II, n = 55). Intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Groups were similar for baseline characteristics. Although there was statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of time to oral intake and mobilization time [12 (8-12) versus 8 (8-10) h; p < 0.001; 12 (8-12) versus 8 (8-10) h; p < 0.001]; the other variables, such as drop in hemoglobin concentration, estimate of blood loss, intra-operative additional sutures, operating time and time to passage of flatus [1.13 ± 0.86 versus 1.41 ± 0.82 g/dL; 487.9 ± 217.01 versus 544.87 ± 237.64 mL; 0 (0-1) versus 0 (0-1); 30.8 ± 7.63 versus 31.6 ± 10.38 h; 18.2 ± 6.04 versus 18.2 ± 4.23 h, p > 0.05] were not statistically different between Group 1 and Group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Closure of the parietal peritoneum has no benefit over non-closure of parietal peritoneum and non-closure is associated with rapid post-operative recovery.
METHODS: A randomized controlled study of women undergoing caesarean section was conducted at the obstetrics department of a research and education hospital between October 2010 and May 2011. Patients were randomly assigned to have closure of parietal peritoneal layer (Group I, n = 55), and non-closure of parietal peritoneal layer (Control, Group II, n = 55). Intra-operative and post-operative outcomes were compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Groups were similar for baseline characteristics. Although there was statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of time to oral intake and mobilization time [12 (8-12) versus 8 (8-10) h; p < 0.001; 12 (8-12) versus 8 (8-10) h; p < 0.001]; the other variables, such as drop in hemoglobin concentration, estimate of blood loss, intra-operative additional sutures, operating time and time to passage of flatus [1.13 ± 0.86 versus 1.41 ± 0.82 g/dL; 487.9 ± 217.01 versus 544.87 ± 237.64 mL; 0 (0-1) versus 0 (0-1); 30.8 ± 7.63 versus 31.6 ± 10.38 h; 18.2 ± 6.04 versus 18.2 ± 4.23 h, p > 0.05] were not statistically different between Group 1 and Group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Closure of the parietal peritoneum has no benefit over non-closure of parietal peritoneum and non-closure is associated with rapid post-operative recovery.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app