PDF herunterladen
AJP Rep 2016; 06(03): e352-e354
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593444
Perspective
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Could Revision of the Embryology Influence Our Cesarean Delivery Technique: Towards an Optimized Cesarean Delivery for Universal Use

Michael Stark
1   The New European Surgical Society (NESA), Berlin, Germany
2   ELSAN Hospital Group, Paris, France
,
Ospan Mynbaev
3   N.I.Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
4   Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT) (State University), Dolgoprudny, Russian Federation
,
Yuri Vassilevski
5   Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russian Federation
,
Patrick Rozenberg
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Versailles University Hospital, Poissy, France
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

20. Juli 2016

13. August 2016

Publikationsdatum:
30. September 2016 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Until today, there is no standardized Cesarean Section method and many variations exist. The main variations concern the type of abdominal incision, usage of abdominal packs, suturing the uterus in one or two layers, and suturing the peritoneal layers or leaving them open. One of the questions is the optimal location of opening the uterus. Recently, omission of the bladder flap was recommended. The anatomy and histology as results from the embryological knowledge might help to solve this question. The working thesis is that the higher the incision is done, the more damage to muscle tissue can take place contrary to incision in the lower segment, where fibrous tissue prevails. In this perspective, a call for participation in a two-armed prospective study is included, which could result in an optimal, evidence-based Cesarean Section for universal use.

Keywords

bladder flap - bladder plica - cesarean delivery - hysterotomy
 

  • References

  • 1 Crosby WM, Hill EC. Embryology of the Mullerian duct system. Review of present-day theory. Obstet Gynecol 1962; 20: 507-515
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chang CY, Goldstein E, Agarwal N, Swan KG. Ether in the developing world: rethinking an abandoned agent. BMC Anesthesiol 2015; 15: 149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lurie S, Glezerman M. The history of cesarean technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (6) 1803-1806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pfannensteil J. Über die Vorteile des suprasymphysären Faszienquerschnitt fur die gynäkologishcen Koliotomien, zugleich ein Beitrag zu der INdikationssetellung der Operationswege. Samml Klein Vortr Gynäkol 1897; 68–98 (Klein Vortr NF Gynäk 1900; 97: 268).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Munro Kerr JM. The lower uterine segment incision in conservative caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1932; 28: 475-487
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78 (7) 615-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ayres-de-Campos D, Patrício B. Modifications to the Misgav Ladach technique for cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79 (4) 326-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Martínez Ceccopieri DA, Barrios Prieto E, Martínez Ríos D. [Modified Misgav-Labach at a tertiary hospital]. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2012; 80 (8) 501-508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gedikbasi A, Akyol A, Ulker V , et al. Cesarean techniques in cases with one previous cesarean delivery: comparison of modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283 (4) 711-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Stark M. Optimierte operative Methode in: Der Kaiserschnitt. Elsevier. GmbH, Munich 2009: 159-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rorie DK, Newton M. Histologic and chemical studies of the smooth muscle in the human cervix and uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967; 99 (4) 466-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fluhmann CF. The developmental anatomy of the cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1960; 15: 62-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Hyaluronidase for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (2) CD003097
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kettle C, Dowswell T, Ismail KM. Absorbable suture materials for primary repair of episiotomy and second degree tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (6) CD000006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hudić I, Fatusić Z, Kamerić L, Misić M, Serak I, Latifagić A. Vaginal delivery after Misgav-Ladach cesarean section—is the risk of uterine rupture acceptable?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23 (10) 1156-1159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 O'Neill HA, Egan G, Walsh CA, Cotter AM, Walsh SR. Omission of the bladder flap at caesarean section reduces delivery time without increased morbidity: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 174: 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Gustapane S , et al. Surgical technique to avoid bladder flap formation during cesarean section. G Chir 2011; 32 (11–12) 498-503
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (6) 1089-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shao Y, Pradhan M. Higher Incision at Upper Part of Lower Segment Caesarean Section. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2014; 52 (194) 764-770
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Stark M. Optimised meta-analysis should be based on standardised methods. BJOG 2011; 118 (6) 765-766 , author reply 766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ding J, Wexler AS, Binder-Macleod SA. A mathematical model that predicts the force-frequency relationship of human skeletal muscle. Muscle Nerve 2002; 26 (4) 477-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mayr NA, Hawighorst H, Yuh WT, Essig M, Magnotta VA, Knopp MV. MR microcirculation assessment in cervical cancer: correlations with histomorphological tumor markers and clinical outcome. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10 (3) 267-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar