A randomized controlled trial of uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair of the uterine incision during cesarean delivery.
OBJECTIVE
To compare extra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery with in situ repair.


METHODS
The present study was a double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted at a university hospital in Egypt during 2012-2013, and included women with an indication for cesarean delivery. Extra-abdominal repair was used in group 1 (n=500) and in situ repair in group 2 (n=500). The primary outcome measure was the surgery duration.


RESULTS
Surgery duration was significantly longer in group 1 than group 2 (49.9±2.3 minutes vs 39.9±1.8 minutes; P<0.001). More patients in group 1 than in group 2 had postoperative moderate-to-severe pain (165 [33.0%] vs 115 [23.0%]; P=0.001) and needed additional postoperative analgesia (100 [20.0%] vs 50 [10.0%]; P<0.001). Moreover, mean time to bowel movement was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (17.0±2.7 hours vs 14.0±1.9 hours; P<0.001).


CONCLUSION
In situ uterine closure is more advantageous than extra-abdominal repair in terms of surgery duration, postoperative pain and need for additional analgesia, and return of bowel movement. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01723605.
['El-Khayat|Waleed|W|', 'Elsharkawi|Mohamed|M|', 'Hassan|Amr|A|']
D000328:Adult D002585:Cesarean Section D005260:Female D006801:Humans D061646:Operative Time D010149:Pain, Postoperative D013536:Suture Techniques D014599:Uterus
Exteriorization In situ repair Cesarean delivery Uterine repair site