EFFECT OF CLOSURE VERSUS NON-CLOSURE OF PARIETAL PERITONEUM AT CAESAREAN SECTION ON ADHESION FORMATION

Authors

  • Gona Aziz Rahem Maternity Teaching Hospital, Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17656/jsmc.10329

Keywords:

Caesarean section, Peritoneum, Closure, Non-closure, Adhesion

Abstract

Background 

Caesarean section (CS) is a standard obstetric procedure, and it is rate increasing worldwide. However, intra-abdominal adhesion is one complication of caesarean section and other obstetric and gynaecological surgeries.

Objectives 

This study aims to compare the frequency and severity of post-surgical adhesions among patients with closed and non-closed parietal peritoneum at their first caesarean section.

Patients and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in maternity and private hospitals in Sulaymaniyah/Kurdistan/Iraq, from July 2015 to December 2020. Involved 190 pregnant ladies entered second CS at term. Patient records were then abstracted to assess prior CS techniques, including parietal peritoneal closure, which the same obstetrician did. A total of 190 patients were checked for that purpose; each was checked to know whether she has intra-abdominal adhesion or not and at the same time to know whether her previous CS was performed by peritoneal closure or not. The main parameters were adhesion formation in the second CS and the type of adhesion. The maternal age, occupation, parity, and gestational age were also recorded—Chi-square test used for statistical analysis of variables. 

Results

Based on the outcome, two groups (one with peritoneal closure and the other without it) were identified, they were compared regarding their maternal age, parity, gestational age and occupation. There was significantly more adhesion between the omentum and Scarpa fascia in the non-closure group (28.3%) compared to (13.1%) in the closure group with (p-value 0.01), which is significant. On the other hand, filmy adhesion was more in the closure group (63.6%), while thick adhesion was more in the non-closure group (53.3%) with (p-value 0.34), which is not significant. 

Conclusion

Parietal peritoneum closure at first caesarean section was associated with less adhesion formation. Therefore, the practice of non-closure of parietal peritoneum at caesarean delivery is not recommended.

References

Luesley DM, Kilby M D. Obstetrics & Gynaecology, An Evidence-based text for the MRCOG. Third edition.UK London. Taylor & Francis group. 2016:416-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b19647

Edmonds K, Lees C, Bourne T. Dewhurst's textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Ninth edition.UK Oxford. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.2018:365-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119211457

Cunningham F G, Leveno K J, Bloom S L, Dashe J S. et al. Williams Obstetrics. Twenty-fifth edition. The USA. Aptara, Inc. 2018:567-90.

Jeffery S, Horak A, O’ Callaghan K. Procedure in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Cape town. University of Cape town. 2010; 55-56.

Royal College of Obstet. & Gyn. Peritoneal Closure. Green-Top Guideline. No.15. The UK. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists.2002.

Takreem A. Comparison of peritoneal closure versus non-closure during caesarean section. J Ayub Med colls Abbottabad. 2015;27(1):78-80.

Zareian Z, Zareian P. non-closure versus closure of peritoneum during cesarean section: a randomized study. Eu J Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Biol. 2006;128(1-2):267-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.02.021

Gultekin N. The comparing of the second cesarean section with the closure or non-closure of parietal peritoneum in the first cesarean section: Result in omental adhesions to the scarpa fascia? Med Res & Innov. 2017;1(4):5-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15761/MRI.1000116

Yiyang Z, Qunxi C, Weiling W. closure vs non-closure of peritoneum at cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94(2);103-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.05.003

Myers S A, Bennett T L. Incidence of significant adhesions at repeat cesarean section and relationship to the method of peritoneal closure. J report Med. 2005;50(9):659-62.

Lyell D J, Caughey A B, Hu E, Daniels K. peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005;106(2):275-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000171120.81732.4c

Kapustin V, Anteby E Y, Gdalevich M, Shenhav S. et al. Effect of closure versus non-closure of peritoneum at the caesarean section on adhesion: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206 (1):56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.032

Sparic R, Lazovic B, Mazic S, Djelic M et al. Peritonealization in Gynecology and Obstetrics-review of literature. J Med pregl. 2013;66(7-8):307-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/MPNS1308307S

Doret M, Gaucherand P. closure and non-closure of the peritoneum at the caesarean section in 2008? review. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2008;37(5): 463-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2008.03.009

Bamigboye A A, Hofmeyr G J. closure versus non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: Short and long term outcome. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014;11(8):1-79. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000163.pub2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000163.pub2

Published

2021-12-21

How to Cite

1.
Rahem G. EFFECT OF CLOSURE VERSUS NON-CLOSURE OF PARIETAL PERITONEUM AT CAESAREAN SECTION ON ADHESION FORMATION. JSMC [Internet]. 2021 Dec. 21 [cited 2024 Apr. 23];11(4):437-42. Available from: https://jsmc.univsul.edu.iq/index.php/jsmc/article/view/jsmc-10329

Similar Articles

1-10 of 35

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.