British Journal of MidwiferyVol. 29, No. Sup8a A guide to caesarean wound healingEllen Kitson-ReynoldsEllen Kitson-ReynoldsMidwifery Programmes Lead and Manager; Lead Midwife for Education, University of SouthamptonSearch for more papers by this authorEllen Kitson-ReynoldsPublished Online:4 Aug 2021https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2021.29.Sup8a.1AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Abell D, Pool AW, Sharafuden S, Skelton V, Dasan J et al.. Enhanced recovery in obstetric surgery (Kings EROS): early results from one of the UKs first programmes. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2014; 31:192 Crossref, Google ScholarAmbler G, Casey C. Fluid handling and negative pressure delivery in a multi-layered absorbent AIRLOCK Technology dressing. 2018. https://www.smith-nephew.com/documents/global/awm/congresses/ewma%202018/ambler%20ewma%20poster%20fluid%20handling.pdf (accessed 15 April 2021) Google ScholarBetrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Mohiddin A, Opiyo N, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Musana O, Wanyonyi SZ, Gülmezoglu AM, Downe S. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies The Lancet. 2018; 392(10155):1358–1368 Crossref, Google ScholarBetrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(2):e0148343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 Crossref, Google ScholarBhatia K, Columb M, Bewlay A, Eccles J, Hulgur M. Jayan N, Lie J, Verma D, Parikh R. The effect of COVID-19 on general anaesthesia rates for caesarean section. A cross-sectional analysis of six hospitals in the north-west of England Anaesthesia. 2021; 76:312–319 Crossref, Google ScholarBoerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, Moller AB, Say L, Hosseinpoor AR, Yi M, Neto D, Temmerman M. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. The Lancet. 2018; 392(10155):1341–1348 Crossref, Google ScholarBragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A et al.. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. British Medical Journal. 2010; 341:c5065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5065 Crossref, Google ScholarBullough L, Wilkinson D, Burns S, Wan, L. Changing wound care protocols to reduce post-operative caesarean section infection and readmission. Wounds UK. 2014; 10(1) Google ScholarCarter EB, Temming LA, Fowler S, Eppes C, Gross G, Srinivas SK, Macones GA, Colditz GA, Tuuli MG. Evidence-based bundles and cesarean delivery surgical site infections. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 130(4):735–746. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002249 Crossref, Google ScholarChildress KMS, Gavard JA, Ward DG, Berger K, Gross GA. A barrier retractor to reduce surgical site infections and wound disruptions in obese patients undergoing cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 214(2):285.e1-285.e10 Crossref, Google ScholarChilds C, Wright N, Willmott J, Davies M, Kilner K, Ousey K, Soltani H, Madhuvrata P, Stephenson J. The surgical wound in infrared: thermographic profiles and early stage test accuracy to predict surgical site infection in obese women during the first 30 days after caesarean section. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. 2019; 8:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-018-0461-7 Crossref, Google ScholarCorbett GA, O'Shea E, Nazir SF, Hanniffy R, Chawke G, Rothwell A, Gilsenan F, MacIntyre A, Meenan AM, O'Sullivan N, Maher N, Tan T, Sheehan SR. Reducing caesarean section surgical site infection (SSI) by 50%: a collaborative approach. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2021; 43(2):67–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000271 Crossref, Google ScholarDe Vries FEE., Wallert ED., Solomkin JS., Allegranzi B., Egger M., Dellinger EP., Boermeester MA. A systematic review and meta-analysis including GRADE qualification of the risk of surgical site infections after prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy compared with conventional dressings in clean and contaminated surgery. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(36):e4673. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004673 Crossref, Google ScholarDenison FC, Aedla NR, Keag O, Hor K, Reynolds RM, Milne A, Diamond A. Care of women with obesity in pregnancy green top guideline no 72. BJOG. 2018 Google ScholarDias M, Dick A, Reynolds RM, Lahti-Pulkkinen M, Denison FC. Predictors of surgical site skin infection and clinical outcome at caesarean section in the very severely obese: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(6)e0216157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216157 Crossref, Google ScholarEl-Achi V, Wan KM, Brown J, Marshall D, McGee T. Readmissions for surgical site infections following caesarean section. ANZJOG. 2018; 58:582–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12796 Google ScholarFobelets M, Beeckman K, Faron G, Daly D, Begley C, Putman K. Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost effectiveness analysis in four European countries. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018; 18:92 Crossref, Google ScholarGetting It Right First Time. Getting it right first time: what we do Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital and NHS England and NHS Improvement. 2021. https://www.gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/ (accessed 14 April 2021) Google ScholarGibbons C, Bruce J, Carpenter J, Wilson AP, Wilson J, Pearson A, Lamping DL, Krukowski ZH, Reeves BC. Identification of risk factors by systematic review and development of risk-adjusted models for surgical site infection. Health Technology Assessment. 2011; 15(30):1–156. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15300 Crossref, Google ScholarGibbs RS. Clinical risk factors for puerperal infection. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1980; 55(5):S178–S184 Crossref, Google ScholarGross R. Psychology: the science of mind. 5th edn. Oxon: Hodder Education, 2005 Google ScholarHyldig N, Möller S, Joergensen JS, Bille C. (2020) Clinical Evaluation of Scar Quality Following the Use of Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Obese Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery Annals of Plastic Surgery 85 (6) ppe59-e65 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002468 Google ScholarHyldig N, Joergensen JS, Wu C, Bille C, Vinter CA, Sorensen JA, Mogensen O, Lamont RF, Möller S, Kruse M. Cost-effectiveness of incisional negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care after caesarean section in obese women: a trial-based economic evaluation. BJOG. 2019; 126:619–627 Crossref, Google ScholarHyldig N, Vinter CA, Kruse M, Mogensen O, Bille C, Sorensen JA, Lamont RF, Wu C, Heidemann LN, Ibsen MH, Laursen JB, Ovesen PG, Rorbye C, Tanvig M, Joergensen JS. Prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy reduces the risk of surgical site infection after caesarean section in obese women: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial BJOG. 2019a; 126: 628–635 Crossref, Google ScholarKawakita T, Iqbal SN, Overcash RT. Negative pressure wound therapy system in extremely obese women after cesarean delivery compared with standard dressing. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2021; 34:4:634–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1611774 Crossref, Google ScholarKealy MA, Small RE, Liamputtong P. Recovery after caesarean birth: a qualitative study of women's accounts in Victoria, Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010; 10:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-47 Crossref, Google ScholarKitson-Reynolds E, Rogers J. (2017) Service evaluation for the ‘Enhanced recovery after planned caesarean section’. Journal of Nursing and Women's Health. 2017; 2017(2):1–7 Google ScholarKnight MBunch KTuffnell DShakespeare JKotnis RKenyon SKurinczuk JJ (eds). Saving lives, improving mothers' care - lessons learned to inform maternity care from the uk and ireland confidential enquiries into maternal deaths and morbidity 2016–18. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, 2020 Google ScholarKrieger Y, Walfisch A, Sheiner E. Surgical site infection following cesarean deliveries: trends and risk factors. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2016; 705:1–5 Google ScholarLofrumento D, Di Nardo M, de Falco M, Di Lieto A. Uterine wound healing: a complex process mediated by proteins and peptides. Current Protein and Peptide Science. 2017; 18(2):125–128(4) Crossref, Google ScholarMcLean M, Hines R, Polinkovsky M, Stuebe A, Thorp J, Strauss R. Type of skin incision and wound complications in the oeddbese parturient. American Journal of Perinatology. 2012; 29(4):301–306. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1295637 Crossref, Google ScholarNazha B, Yang J CH, Owonikoko TK. Benefits and limitations of real-world evidence: lessons from EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncology. 2021; 17:8:965–977 Crossref, Google ScholarNHS. Recovery: caesarean section. 2019. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/caesarean-section/recovery/ (accessed 12 March 2021) Google ScholarNHS Patient Survey Programme. 2019 survey of women's experiences of maternity care. Statistical release: Care Quality Commission, National Statistics and NHS, 2020 Google ScholarNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean section clinical guideline. 2011 (updated 2019). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132/resources/caesarean-section-pdf-35109507009733 (accessed 13 March 2021) Google ScholarNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence. PICO negative pressure wound dressings for closed surgical incisions medical terminologies guidance. 2019a. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg43/resources/pico-negative-pressure-wound-dressings-for-closed-surgical-incisions-pdf-64372054098373 (accessed 13 March 2021) Google ScholarNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean birth. 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng192/resources/caesarean-birth-pdf-66142078788805 (accessed 14 April 2021) Google ScholarNMPA Project Team. National Maternity and Perinatal Audit: Clinical report 2019. Based on births in NHS maternity services between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017. London: RCOG, 2019 Google ScholarNorman G, Goh EL, Dumville JC, Shi C, Liu Z, Chiverton L, Stankiewicz M, Reid A. (2020) Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; 6. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub6 Google ScholarNursing and Midwifery Council. The code. London: NMC, 2018 Google ScholarNursing and Midwifery Council. Standards for pre-registration midwifery programmes. London: NMC, 2019 Google ScholarPaeglis C. Supervision: a ‘fresh eyes’ approach. The practising midwife. 2012; 15(1):24–26 Google ScholarPetherick ES, Dalton JE, Moore PJ, Cullum N. Methods for identifying surgical wound infection after discharge from hospital: a systematic review. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2006; 27(6):170. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-6-170 Crossref, Google ScholarPravina P, Tewary K. Comparative study with or without application of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in patients undergoing elective cesarean section. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021; 10(1):173–177 Crossref, Google ScholarRubin RH. Surgical wound infection: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and management. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2006; 6:171 Crossref, Google ScholarRydahl E, Declercq E, Juhl M, Maimburg RD. Cesarean section on a rise—Does advanced maternal age explain the increase? A population register-based study. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(1):e0210655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210655 Crossref, Google ScholarSaeed KBM, Greene RA, Corcoran P et al.. Incidence of surgical site infection following caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol BMJ Open. 2017; 7:e013037. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013037 Crossref, Google ScholarSalim R, Braverman M, Teitler N, Berkovic I, Suliman A, Shalev E. Risk factors for infection following cesarean delivery: an interventional study. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2012; 25(12):2708–2712 Crossref, Google ScholarSandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GHA, Homer CSE et al.. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. The Lancet. 2018; 392(10155):1349–1357 Crossref, Google ScholarSandy-Hodgetts K, Parsons R, Norman R et al.. Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in the prevention of surgical wound complications in the cesarean section at-risk population: a parallel group randomised multicentre trial—the CYGNUS protocol. BMJ Open. 2020; 10:e035727 Crossref, Google ScholarSartelli M, Chichom-Mefire A, Labricciosa FM. et al.. The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections. World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2017; 12:29 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-017-0141-6 Crossref, Google ScholarSchneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2005; 90(1):10–15 Crossref, Google ScholarSearle RJ, Myers D. A survey of caesarean section surgical site infections with PICO™ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System in high-risk patients in England and Ireland. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2017; 97(2):122–124 Crossref, Google ScholarSebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP, Wadsworth J, Joffe M, Beard RW, Regan L, Robinson S. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287 213 pregnancies in London. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 2001; 25(8):1175–1182. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801670. Crossref, Google ScholarSherwood L. Human physiology from cells to systems. 9th edn. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2015 Google ScholarShiroky J, Lillie E, Muaddi H, Sevigny M, Choi WJ, Karanicolas PJ. The impact of negative pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions on surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2020; 167(6):1001–1009 Crossref, Google ScholarSingh S, Young A, McNaught CE. The physiology of wound healing. Surgery (Oxford). 2017; 35 (9):473–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpsur.2017.06.004 Crossref, Google ScholarSmail FM, Grivell RM. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014; 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007482.pub3 Google ScholarSmith and Nephew. PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System. https://www.smith-nephew.com/key-products/advanced-wound-management/pico/ (accessed 13 March 2021) Google ScholarStannard JP, Gabriel A, Lehner B. Use of negative pressure wound therapy over clean, closed surgical incisions. International Wound Journal. 2012; 9(1):32–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01017.x Crossref, Google ScholarStapleton H. Wound healing in obese women following caesarean section. 2015; 23(3):34 Google ScholarStrugala V, Martin R. Meta-analysis of comparative trials evaluating a prophylactic single-use negative pressure wound therapy system for the prevention of surgical site complications. Surgical Infections (Larchmt). 2017;18(7):810–819 Crossref, Google ScholarTucker-Blackburn S. Maternal, fetal and neonatal physiology: a clinical perspective. 2nd edn. St. Louis, MO: Saunders, 2003 Google ScholarTuuli M. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy at caesarean: are we there yet? BJOG. 2019; 126:635–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15572 Crossref, Google ScholarTuuli MG, Liu J, Tita ATN et al.. Effect of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy vs standard wound dressing on surgical-site infection in obese women after cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020; 324(12):1180–1189. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.13361 Crossref, Google ScholarVelnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. Journal of International Medical Research. 2009; 1528–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000903700531 Crossref, Google ScholarWall PD, Deucy EE, Glantz JC, Pressman EK. Vertical skin incisions and wound complications in the obese parturient. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102(5)952–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00861-5 Crossref, Google ScholarWeaver J, Browne J, Aras-Payne A, Magill-Cuerden J. A comprehensive systematic review of the impact of planned interventions offered to pregnant women who have requested a caesarean section as a result of tokophobia (fear of childbirth) JBI Library of Systematic Reviews. 2012; 10(28):1–20. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2012-322 Crossref, Google ScholarWeckesser A, Farmer N, Dam R et al.. Women's perspectives on caesarean section recovery, infection and the PREPS trial: a qualitative pilot study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19:245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2402-8 Crossref, Google ScholarWorld Health Organization. WHO statement on CS rates. 2015. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/cs-statement/en/ (accessed 13 March 2021) Google ScholarWloch C, van Hoek AJ, Green N et al.. Cost–benefit analysis of surveillance for surgical site infection following caesarean section. BMJ Open. 2020; 10 :e036919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036919 Crossref, Google ScholarWrench IJ, Allison A, Galimberti A, Radley S, Wilson MJ. Introduction of enhanced recovery for elective caesarean section enabling next day discharge: a tertiary centre experience. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia. 2015; 24(2):124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2015.01.003 Crossref, Google ScholarXia H, Zhao S, Wu Z, Lu H, Zhou C, Chen X. Emergency caesarean delivery in a patient with confirmed COVID-19 under spinal anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2020; 124(5):e216–218 Crossref, Google ScholarZuarez-Easton S, Zafran N, Garmi G, Salim R. Postcesarean wound infection: prevalence, impact, prevention, and management challenges. International Journal of Women's Health. 2017; 9:81–88. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S98876 Crossref, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 2 August 2021Volume 29Issue Sup8aISSN (print): 0969-4900ISSN (online): 2052-4307 Metrics History Published online 4 August 2021 Published in print 2 August 2021 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download