Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:


Subscribers log in here


Cesarean delivery: Technique

INTRODUCTION

As with most surgical procedures, there is no standard technique for cesarean delivery. The following discussion will review each step in the procedure and provide evidence-based recommendations for surgical technique, when these data are available.

OPENING THE ABDOMEN

The advantages and disadvantages of various incisions and the procedure for opening the abdomen from skin to peritoneum are generally the same as for gynecologic procedures. (See "Incisions for open abdominal surgery".)

Skin incision

Transverse or vertical? — For most patients, we prefer a transverse incision since it is associated with less postoperative pain, greater wound strength, and better cosmetic appearance than the vertical midline incision. We rarely perform a vertical incision. We use a vertical incision when we believe it will be faster and the incision-to-delivery time is critical, as well as when we believe a transverse incision may not provide adequate exposure or may be too prone to hematoma formation. Vertical incisions generally allow faster abdominal entry [1], cause less bleeding and nerve injury, and can be easily extended cephalad if more space is required for access. (See "Incisions for open abdominal surgery".)

Two common transverse incisions for cesarean delivery are the Pfannenstiel type and the Joel-Cohen type incisions. The Pfannenstiel skin incision is slightly curved, 2 to 3 cm above the symphysis pubis, with the midportion of the incision within the shaved area of the pubic hair. The Joel-Cohen incision is straight, 3 cm below the line that joins the anterior superior iliac spines, and slightly more cephalad than Pfannenstiel [2].

In meta-analyses of randomized trials of surgical incisions for cesarean delivery, the Joel-Cohen type incision had significant short-term advantages compared with the Pfannenstiel incision, including lower rates of fever, pain, and use of analgesia; less blood loss; and shorter operating time (overall and incision-to-delivery) and hospital stay [3,4]. In two trials (411 women) that compared the Joel-Cohen incision with the Pfannenstiel incision, the Joel-Cohen incision resulted in a 65 percent reduction in reported postoperative febrile morbidity (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.87); one trial reported reduced postoperative analgesic requirements (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.76), operating time (mean difference [MD] -11.40, 95% CI -16.55 to -6.25 minutes), delivery time (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.27 minutes), total dose of analgesia in the first 24 hours (MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.59), estimated blood loss (MD -58.00, 95% CI -108.51 to -7.49 mL), postoperative hospital stay for the mother (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.84 days), and increased time to the first dose of analgesia (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.48 hours) [3]. No other significant differences were found in either trial.

                                         

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2014. | This topic last updated: Oct 23, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Wylie BJ, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Comparison of transverse and vertical skin incision for emergency cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1134.
  2. Dahlke JD, Mendez-Figueroa H, Rouse DJ, et al. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:294.
  3. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; :CD004453.
  4. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:431.
  5. Hasselgren PO, Hagberg E, Malmer H, et al. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg 1984; 119:917.
  6. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78:615.
  7. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:221.
  8. Berthet J, Peresse JF, Rosier P, Racinet C. [Comparative study of Pfannenstiel's incision and transverse abdominal incision in gynecologic and obstetric surgery]. Presse Med 1989; 18:1431.
  9. Giacalone PL, Daures JP, Vignal J, et al. Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:745.
  10. Ayers JW, Morley GW. Surgical incision for cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70:706.
  11. Wood RM, Simon H, Oz AU. Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1999; 44:788.
  12. Kadir RA, Khan A, Wilcock F, Chapman L. Is inferior dissection of the rectus sheath necessary during Pfannenstiel incision for lower segment Caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 128:262.
  13. CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos E, Addo V, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382:234.
  14. Tappauf C, Schest E, Reif P, et al. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a prospective randomized comparison of surgical morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:338.e1.
  15. Kroon N, Reginald PW. Parietal peritoneal closure at caesarean section revisited. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27:159.
  16. Hibbard LT. Extraperitoneal cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1985; 28:711.
  17. Hohlagschwandtner M, Ruecklinger E, Husslein P, Joura EA. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98:1089.
  18. Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Fogertey P, et al. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119:815.
  19. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94:735.
  20. Patterson LS, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with classic and inverted T cesarean incisions. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:633.
  21. Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Bufkin L, et al. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2002; 109:448.
  22. Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102:101.
  23. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:292.e1.
  24. Xu LL, Chau AM, Zuschmann A. Blunt vs. sharp uterine expansion at lower segment cesarean section delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208:62.e1.
  25. Wilkinson, C, Enkin, MW. Absorbable staples for uterine incision at caesarean section. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2005.
  26. Chedraui PA, Insuasti DF. Intravenous nitroglycerin in the management of retained placenta. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 56:61.
  27. Jha S, Chiu JW, Yeo IS. Intravenous nitro-glycerine versus general anaesthesia for placental extraction--a sequential comparison. Med Sci Monit 2003; 9:CS63.
  28. Lowenwirt IP, Zauk RM, Handwerker SM. Safety of intravenous glyceryl trinitrate in management of retained placenta. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 37:20.
  29. Andersen HF, Auster GH, Marx GF, Merkatz IR. Neonatal status in relation to incision intervals, obstetric factors, and anesthesia at cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 1987; 4:279.
  30. Fontanarosa M, Fontanarosa N. Incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal wellbeing during cesarean section. Minerva Ginecol 2008; 60:23.
  31. Bader AM, Datta S, Arthur GR, et al. Maternal and fetal catecholamines and uterine incision-to-delivery interval during elective cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:600.
  32. Gordon A, McKechnie EJ, Jeffery H. Pediatric presence at cesarean section: justified or not? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193:599.
  33. Leavitt BG, Huff DL, Bell LA, Thurnau GR. Placental drainage of fetal blood at cesarean delivery and feto maternal transfusion: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:608.
  34. Anorlu RI, Maholwana B, Hofmeyr GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD004737.
  35. Atkinson MW, Owen J, Wren A, Hauth JC. The effect of manual removal of the placenta on post-cesarean endometritis. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:99.
  36. Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Extraabdominal vs intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200:625.e1.
  37. Coutinho IC, Ramos de Amorim MM, Katz L, Bandeira de Ferraz AA. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111:639.
  38. Siddiqui M, Goldszmidt E, Fallah S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ uterine repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:570.
  39. Liabsuetrakul t, Peeyananjarassri K. Mechanical dilatation of the cervix at non-labour caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD008019.
  40. Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Unidirectional barbed suture versus continuous suture with intracorporeal knots in laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17:725.
  41. Greenberg JA, Einarsson JI. The use of bidirectional barbed suture in laparoscopic myomectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15:621.
  42. Murtha AP, Kaplan AL, Paglia MJ, et al. Evaluation of a novel technique for wound closure using a barbed suture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117:1769.
  43. Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S, Grivell RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7:CD004732.
  44. Yazicioglu F, Gökdogan A, Kelekci S, et al. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: Is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 124:32.
  45. Stafford MK, Pitman MC, Nanthakumaran N, Smith JR. Blunt-tipped versus sharp-tipped needles: wound morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 18:18.
  46. Parantainen A, Verbeek JH, Lavoie MC, Pahwa M. Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD009170.
  47. CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010; 117:1366.
  48. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:1326.
  49. Durnwald C, Mercer B. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189:925.
  50. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116:43.
  51. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115:5.
  52. Blumenfeld YJ, Caughey AB, El-Sayed YY, et al. Single- versus double-layer hysterotomy closure at primary caesarean delivery and bladder adhesions. BJOG 2010; 117:690.
  53. Harrigill KM, Miller HS, Haynes DE. The effect of intraabdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery on maternal morbidity: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101:80.
  54. Viney R, Isaacs C, Chelmow D. Intra-abdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119:1106.
  55. Edwards RK, Ingersoll M, Gerkin RD, et al. Carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier placement at primary cesarean delivery and outcomes at repeat cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123:923.
  56. Gaspar-Oishi M, Aeby T. Cesarean delivery times and adhesion severity associated with prior placement of a sodium hyaluronate-carboxycellulose barrier. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124:679.
  57. Andolf E, Thorsell M, Källén K. Cesarean delivery and risk for postoperative adhesions and intestinal obstruction: a nested case-control study of the Swedish Medical Birth Registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:406.e1.
  58. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:1226.
  59. Al-Sunaidi M, Tulandi T. Adhesion-related bowel obstruction after hysterectomy for benign conditions. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:1162.
  60. Albright CM, Rouse DJ. Adhesion barriers at cesarean delivery: advertising compared with the evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:157.
  61. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 8:CD000163.
  62. Kapustian V, Anteby EY, Gdalevich M, et al. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:56.e1.
  63. Cheong YC, Premkumar G, Metwally M, et al. To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 147:3.
  64. Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG 2011; 118:410.
  65. Lyell DJ, Caughey AB, Hu E, et al. Rectus muscle and visceral peritoneum closure at cesarean delivery and intraabdominal adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:515.e1.
  66. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 251:843.
  67. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 2005; 62:220.
  68. Rahbari NN, Knebel P, Diener MK, et al. Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery - Is there any consensus? BMC Surg 2009; 9:8.
  69. Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, et al. Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 2009; 249:913.
  70. Maxwell GL, Soisson AP, Brittain PC, et al. Repair of transversely incised abdominal wall fascia in a rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:65.
  71. Anderson ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD004663.
  72. Chelmow D, Rodriguez EJ, Sabatini MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:974.
  73. Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J, et al. Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85:412.
  74. Gates S, Anderson ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12:CD004549.
  75. Ramsey PS, White AM, Guinn DA, et al. Subcutaneous tissue reapproximation, alone or in combination with drain, in obese women undergoing cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:967.
  76. Tuuli MG, Rampersad RM, Carbone JF, et al. Staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117:682.
  77. Clay FS, Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204:378.
  78. Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW. Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med 1997; 42:627.
  79. Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N. A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200:265.e1.
  80. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:36.e1.
  81. Figueroa D, Jauk VC, Szychowski JM, et al. Surgical staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121:33.
  82. Basha SL, Rochon ML, Quiñones JN, et al. Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:285.e1.
  83. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD004662.
  84. Nabhan AF. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 100:69.
  85. Pearce C, Torres C, Stallings S, et al. Elective appendectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:491.e1.