Transverse versus longitudinal blunt extension of the uterine incision during cesarean section in women with a uterine scar of previous cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare two different blunt extension techniques of the lower segment transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery in women with a uterine scar of previous cesarean delivery. MethodsStudy design: Prospective single-blinded parallel multi-center randomized controlled trial involving 392 cases equally divided into two groups. Group one had their incision extended transversely, while group two had their incision extended longitudinally. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the unintended extension of the uterine incision, while the secondary outcomes included the need for additional stitches to achieve hemostasis, the drop in hemoglobin level, uterine vessels injury, and the need for blood transfusion. ResultsNo significant difference between the transverse and longitudinal extension of the uterine incision during cesarean section as regards unintended uterine extension (P = 0.860), uterine vessel injury (P = 0.501), and cases requiring blood transfusion (P = 0.814). Significantly lower drop in hemoglobin level (P ≤ 0.001) and significantly less need for additional stitches (P ≤ 0.001) in cases with the longitudinal extension of uterine incision. ConclusionIn women with a uterine scar of previous cesarean delivery, the blunt longitudinal extension of the uterine incision in the lower segment cesarean section didn't differ from the blunt transverse extension as regards unintended uterine extension but is associated with less hemoglobin drop and less need for additional stitches as compared to transverse extension of the incision. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term complications of both techniques.