Features of involution and local inflammation of uterine tissues after planned caesarian section at various ways of uterine closure
https://doi.org/10.12737/article_59e85bfc248a72.45112631
Abstract
Aim: to determine the method of uterine closure in the planned caesarean section, optimizing its involution and reducing local inflammation. Material and methods: a prospective randomized controlled trial. 135 pregnant women undergone planned caesarian section were examined. We applied different methods of uterine closure: in Group 1 (36 women) - one-row continuous blanket Reverdin's suture; in Group 2 (39 women) - one-row continuous Schmieden's suture; in Group 3 (28 women) - two-row continuous Schmieden's suture; and in Group 4 (32 women) - separate two-row sutures (2nd row - inverted U-shaped). Results. The most aggressive in the severity and duration of the local inflammatory reaction is Schmieden's technique. A two-row suture has the most pronounced delaying effect on the uterine involution. We found a one-row continuous blanket Reverdin's suture to be the optimal method of uterine closure. Conclusion: In comparison with Schmieden's sutures (one- or two-row) or with a two-row interrupted suture, using a one-row continuous blanket Reverdin's suture in uterine closure after planned caesarian section is characterized with quicker involution of the uterus and suture areas above it, with less expressed and shortened inflammation, and with fewer complications.
About the Authors
V. A. Kramarskiy
Irkutsk State Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education - Branch Campus of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Y. V. Trusov
Irkutsk State Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education - Branch Campus of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Крамарский В.А., Раевская Л.Ю., Дудакова В.Н. Морфологический индекс как прогностический критерий заживления раны на матке после кесарева сечения // Акушерство и гинекология. - 2002. - № 6. -С. 565-568
2. Способ оценки заживления раны на матке после операции кесарева сечения: Пат. № 2175524 Рос. Федерация; МПК A61B8/00, A61B8/12 / Крамарский В.А., Дудакова В.Н., Мащакевич Л.И.; заявитель и патентообладатель Иркутский государственный институт усовершенствования врачей. - № 2000127230/14; заявл. 30.10.2000; опубл. 10.11.2001.5
3. Dodd J.M., Anderson E.R., Gates S., Grivell R.M. (2014). Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 22 (7), CD004732. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD004732.pub3.
4. Guise J.-M., Eden K., Emeis C., Denman M.A., Marshall N., Fu R., Janik R., Nygren P., Walker M., McDonagh M. (2010). Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess, 191, 1- 397.
5. Kozhimannil K.B., Law M.R., Virnig B.A. (2013). Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood), 32 (3), 527-535.
Review
For citations:
Kramarskiy V.A., Trusov Y.V. Features of involution and local inflammation of uterine tissues after planned caesarian section at various ways of uterine closure. Acta Biomedica Scientifica. 2017;2(5(1)):20-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.12737/article_59e85bfc248a72.45112631
Views:
820
.png)
Email this article 
