Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology (CEOG) is published by IMR Press from Volume 46 Issue 1 (2019). Previous articles were published by another publisher on a subscription basis, and they are hosted by IMR Press on imrpress.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with S.O.G.
Cite this article
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 = 1 71) 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 士8.65 vs. 33.02土9.54 min., p= 0.011 and 2.23 土0.49 Vs. 2.45士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.