Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep;10(3):131-137.

Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair: effect on intraoperative nausea and vomiting during repeat cesarean delivery - A randomized clinical trial

M S Abdellah  1 , A M Abbas  1 , M K Ali  1 , A Mahmoud  1 , S A Abdullah  1
Affiliations

Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair: effect on intraoperative nausea and vomiting during repeat cesarean delivery - A randomized clinical trial

M S Abdellah et al. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2018 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The current study aims to compare the rate of intraoperative nausea and vomiting after repeat cesarean delivery (CD) under two different approaches: by intraperitoneal incision repair or by uterus exteriorization for incision reapair.

Materials and methods: We conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial (NCT03009994) at a tertiary University Hospital between the 1st of September 2016 and the 31st of December 2017. The study included pregnant women at term of gestation (>37 weeks) scheduled for repeat CD under spinal anesthesia. Women were assigned to either uterine exteriorization for incision repair (Group I) or intraperitoneal incision repair (Group II). The primary assessed was the rate of nausea and vomiting during CD.

Results: The study included 1028 women in the final analysis. The rate of intraoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the intraperitoneal repair group compared to the exteriorization group (24% versus 38.7%, p= 0.001). Likewise, occurrence of uterine atony and the need for additional uterotonics were significantly lower in the intraperitoneal repair group (p= 0.001 and 0.02 respectively). Postoperatively, the rate of nausea and vomiting (12.6 % versus 21 %; P=0.001), and the time to the first recognized bowel movement (12.3 hours versus 14.1 hours; P=0.003) were significantly lower in the intraperitoneal repair group compared to the exteriorization group.

Conclusions: Intraperitoneal repair of the uterine incision during repeat CD is beneficial compared to exteriorization. Improvements in the rate of intra- and postoperative nausea, vomiting, uterine atony and time to the first recognized bowel movement were observed in patients operated with this technique.

Keywords: Exteriorization; cesarean delivery; nausea; uterine incision; uterine repair; vomiting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest:The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
— The study flowchart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abd-El-Maeboud KH, Ibrahim MI, Shalaby DA, et al. Gum chewing stimulates early return of bowel motility after caeserean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;116:1334–1339. - PubMed
    1. Al Rifai RH. Trend of caesarean deliveries in Egypt and its associated factors: evidence from national surveys, 2005–2014. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2017;1:417. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bharathi KR, Mahendra G, Vindhyshree S, et al. A comparative study of exteriorization and intraperitoneal closure of uterus in caesarean delivery. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:5415–5419.
    1. Chauhan S, Devi SPK. A randomized comparative study of exteriorization of uterus versus in situ intra-peritoneal repair at cesarean delivery. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:281–286.
    1. Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, et al. CORONIS collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):62–72. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources