Type of Blunt Expansion of the Low Transverse Uterine Incision During Caesarean Section and the Risk of Postoperative Complications: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate two techniques of uterine incision expansion (cephalad-caudad vs. transverse) during Caesarean section (CS).

METHODS

A total of 839 patients were randomized to either a cephalad-caudad blunt expansion of uterine incision during CS versus a transverse (lateral-lateral) expansion. The primary outcome was blood loss, measured with the descent of hemoglobin level. Secondary outcomes were the need for blood transfusion and the number of surgical or postoperative complications presented in both groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference with regard to decrease in hemoglobin level, but there was a higher number of surgical complications in the transverse expansion group (Cephalad-caudad: 11.53% vs. transverse: 16.42%; odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.98; P = 0.04). There were more cases of unintended extensions of uterine incision (10.35% vs. 16.18%; OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4-0.9; P = 0.01) but no statistical difference in the number of hematomas, uterine vessel injury, or the need to transfuse.

CONCLUSION

The cephalad-caudad blunt expansion technique of the low transverse uterine incision is safer than the transverse expansion. There was no difference in regard to decrease in hemoglobin level, but there is a lower risk of surgical complications not associated with an increased need for blood transfusions when compared with the transverse expansion.