Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.8)
Index Copernicus  – 171.00; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2018, vol. 27, nr 3, March, p. 357–361

doi: 10.17219/acem/66215

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

A comparison of 2 cesarean section methods, modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr: A randomized controlled study

Nur Şahin1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Mine Genc1,A,D, Gülüzar Arzu Turan1,B,C, Esin Kasap2,A,B,C, Serkan Güçlü3,D,E,F

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sifa University, Izmir, Turkey

2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karatas Hospital, Izmir, Turkey

3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kent Hospital, Izmir, Turkey

Abstract

Background. The modified Misgav-Ladach method (MML) is a minimally invasive cesarean section procedure compared with the classic Pfannenstiel-Kerr (PK) method.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to compare the MML method and the PK method in terms of intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes.
Material and Methods. This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved 252 pregnant women scheduled for primary emergency or elective cesarean section between October, 2014 and July, 2015. The primary outcome measures were the duration of surgery, extraction time, Apgar score, blood loss, wound complications, and number of sutures used. Secondary outcome measures were the wound infection, time of bowel restitution, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at 6 h and 24 h after the operation, limitations in movement, and analgesic requirements. At 6 weeks after surgery, the patients were evaluated regarding late complications.
Results. There was a significant reduction in total operating and extraction time in the MML group (p < 0.001). Limitations in movement were lower at 24 h after the MML operation, and less analgesic was required in the MML group. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of febrile morbidity or the duration of hospitalization. At 6 weeks after the operation, no complaints and no additional complications from the surgery were noted.
Conclusion. The MML method is a minimally invasive cesarean section. In the future, as surgeons’ experience increases, MML will likely be chosen more often than the classic PK method.

Key words

cesarean section, postoperative pain, Pfannenstiel incision, modified Misgav-Ladach technique, operating time

References (21)

  1. Menacker F, Curtin SC. Trends in cesarean birth and vaginal birth after previous cesarean, 1991–1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2001;49(13):1–16.
  2. Thomas J, Paranjothy S; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press; 2001.
  3. Cai WW, Marks JS, Chen CH, Zhuang YX, Morris L, Harris JR. Increased caesarean section rates and emerging patterns of health insurance in Shanghai, China. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:777–780.
  4. Pfannenstiel J. On the advantages of a transverse cut of the fascia above the symphysis for gynecological laparotomies, and advice on surgical methods and indications. Samml Klin Vortr Gynakol. 1987; 68:1–22.
  5. Kerr JMM. The technic of cesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1926;12: 729–734.
  6. Joel-Cohen S. Abdominal and Vaginal Hysterectomy: New Techniques Based on Times and Motion Studies. London: Heinemann; 1972.
  7. Stark M, Finkel AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;53:121–122.
  8. Song SH, Oh MJ, Kim T, Hur JY, Saw HS, Park YK. Finger-assisted stretching technique for cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;92(3):212–216.
  9. Bjorklund K, Kimaro M, Urassa E, Lindmark G. Introduction of the Misgav Ladach caesarean section at an African tertiary centre: A randomised control trial. BJOG. 2000;107(2):209–216.
  10. Darj E, Nordstrom ML. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78(1):37–41.
  11. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. BJOG. 1999;106(3): 221–226.
  12. Xavier P, Ayres-De-Campos D, Reynolds A, Guimaraes M, Costa-Santos C, Patricio B. The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(9):878–882.
  13. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Raio L, et al. 2002. Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: Does it make a difference? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:1040–1046.
  14. Naki MM, Api O, Celik H, Kars B, Yasar E, Unal O. Comparative study of Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr cesarean techniques: A randomized controlled study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24 (2): 239–244.
  15. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Farine D, et al. Effects of visceral peritoneal closure on scar formation at cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:131–135.
  16. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Guido M, Zizza A, Farine D, Stark M. Should the visceral peritoneum at the bladder flap closed at cesarean sections? A post-partum sonographic and clinical assessment. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23: 662–669.
  17. Fatusic Z, Hudic I, Sinanovic O, Kapıdzıc M, Hotic N, Music A. Short-term postnatal quality of life in women with previous Misgav Ladach caesarean section compared to Phannenstiel-Dorffler caesarean section method. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(9):1138–1142.
  18. Federici D, Lacelli B, Muggiasca L, Agarossi A, Cippolla L, Conti M. Cesarean section using the Misgav Ladach method. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997;57(3):273–279.
  19. Kulas T, Habek D, Karsa M, Vukovic M. Modified Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: Clinical experience. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2008;65:222–226.
  20. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Balestreri D, et al. A randomized clinical trial of two surgical techniques for cesarean section. Am J Perinatol. 1998; 15:589–594.
  21. Li M, Zou L, Zhu J. Study on modification of the Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section. J Tongji Med Univ. 2001;21(1):75–77.
© Wroclaw Medical University