Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for gynecologic surgery: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial
- PMID: 19574171
- DOI: 10.1016/S1028-4559(09)60270-9
Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for gynecologic surgery: a randomized, double-blind controlled trial
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the transverse muscle-cutting Maylard incision and the Pfannenstiel incision for hysterectomies, in terms of postoperative complications, pain, and quality of life.
Materials and methods: This randomized, double-blind study compared two laparotomy techniques. All hysterectomies were performed for benign conditions. Eighty cases were randomly assigned to receive either Pfannenstiel or Maylard incisions. Measured intraoperative variables included volume of blood loss and duration of surgery. Postoperative variables included abdominal distension, postoperative pain, and quality of life.
Results: Postoperative abdominal distension was significantly lower in the Maylard group (p = 0.004). There were no differences in intraoperative characteristics and duration of hospitalization, hemorrhage volume, or duration of surgery between the two groups.
Conclusion: Hysterectomy performed via the Maylard incision was associated with the use of fewer additional analgesics than hysterectomy performed via the Pfannenstiel incision.
Similar articles
-
Comparative Study of Postoperative Pain between Maylard Incision and Pfannenstiel Incision in Gynecologic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.J Med Assoc Thai. 2016 Jul;99 Suppl 4:S16-22. J Med Assoc Thai. 2016. PMID: 29916668 Clinical Trial.
-
Maylard incision in gynecologic surgery: 4-year experience in Thammasat University Hospital.J Med Assoc Thai. 2014 Aug;97 Suppl 8:S102-7. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014. PMID: 25518301
-
Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;99(5 Pt 1):745-50. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)01957-9. Obstet Gynecol. 2002. PMID: 11978282 Clinical Trial.
-
Vertical compared with transverse incisions in abdominal surgery.Eur J Surg. 2001 Apr;167(4):260-7. doi: 10.1080/110241501300091408. Eur J Surg. 2001. PMID: 11354317 Review.
-
Radical hysterectomy: current management guidelines.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;177(2):372-4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70200-x. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997. PMID: 9290453 Review.
Cited by
-
A calcific pelvic mass in a woman with chronic spinal pain: a case of mature cystic teratoma.J Chiropr Med. 2011 Dec;10(4):327-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2011.06.004. J Chiropr Med. 2011. PMID: 22654694 Free PMC article.
-
Peritoneal hernia following abdominal hysterectomy: A case report.Case Rep Womens Health. 2021 Nov 16;33:e00371. doi: 10.1016/j.crwh.2021.e00371. eCollection 2022 Jan. Case Rep Womens Health. 2021. PMID: 34824987 Free PMC article.
-
Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 29;8:CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6. PMID: 26264829 Free PMC article. Updated.
-
Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 29;8(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37642285 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Maylard and Cherney incisions' outcomes in hysterectomy surgery for benign indications: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.Eur J Med Res. 2025 Jan 28;30(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s40001-025-02311-1. Eur J Med Res. 2025. PMID: 39871322 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical