Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology · 2011
Exteriorized versus in-situ repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ozbay K
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: To compare advantages and disadvantages of exteriorized and in situ repair techniques of uterine incision during cesarean section.
METHODS: A total of 338 patients delivered by cesarean section were included in the study. Patients were randomized according to the location of uterine incision repair; the uterus was exteriorized (n = 171) or not (in situ repair group) (n = 167) during cesarean section. Two groups were compared in terms of blood loss, operation time, temperature patterns, analgesic dosage, length of hospital stay, incidence of nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in postoperative analgesic dosage, temperature patterns, drops in hemoglobin or hematocrit levels and in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting between the two groups. Operation time and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the in situ repair group, when it was compared to those of which the uterus was exteriorized (30.64 +/- 8.65 vs 33.02 +/- 9.54 min., p = 0.011 and 2.23 +/- 0.49 vs 2.45 +/- 0.94 days, p = 0.045).
CONCLUSIONS: Exteriorized and in situ repair of uterine incisions have similar effects on blood loss, temperature patterns, postoperative analgesic dosage and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although both methods of uterine incision repair are valid options during surgery, cesarean sections took less time and length of hospital stay was shorter when uterine incision was repaired in situ.
METHODS: A total of 338 patients delivered by cesarean section were included in the study. Patients were randomized according to the location of uterine incision repair; the uterus was exteriorized (n = 171) or not (in situ repair group) (n = 167) during cesarean section. Two groups were compared in terms of blood loss, operation time, temperature patterns, analgesic dosage, length of hospital stay, incidence of nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in postoperative analgesic dosage, temperature patterns, drops in hemoglobin or hematocrit levels and in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting between the two groups. Operation time and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the in situ repair group, when it was compared to those of which the uterus was exteriorized (30.64 +/- 8.65 vs 33.02 +/- 9.54 min., p = 0.011 and 2.23 +/- 0.49 vs 2.45 +/- 0.94 days, p = 0.045).
CONCLUSIONS: Exteriorized and in situ repair of uterine incisions have similar effects on blood loss, temperature patterns, postoperative analgesic dosage and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although both methods of uterine incision repair are valid options during surgery, cesarean sections took less time and length of hospital stay was shorter when uterine incision was repaired in situ.