Why the study?
Does the method of peritoneal closure (double closure, double non-closure, or single non-closure) affect wound sepsis, operation time, and febrile morbidity in patients undergoing caesarean section?
Does the method of peritoneal closure (double closure, double non-closure, or single non-closure) affect wound sepsis, operation time, and febrile morbidity in patients undergoing caesarean section?
Double closure of the peritoneum during caesarean section significantly increases operation time without reducing wound sepsis or febrile morbidity compared to non-closure methods.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Double closure should not yet change practice given longer times without fewer infections; leaves open optimal peritoneal management pending randomized data.
At caesarean section, the closure or non-closure of the parietal and/or the visceral peritoneum has short-term and long-term advantages and disadvantages. The majority of reports have compared double closure vs double non-closure, non-closure of the parietal, or non-closure of the visceral parietal, with special emphasis on operation time, febrile morbidity, and duration of hospital stay. The present study compares the three methods in 692 consecutive caesarean sections in a South African rural hospital, with special emphasis on wound sepsis, operation time and febrile morbidity. The prevalence of wound sepsis and febrile morbidity was 4.9% and 2.5%, respectively. The only significant difference between the three groups was that double closure resulted in the longest operation time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bogaert et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: