Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Cesarean delivery: Surgical technique

Vincenzo Berghella, MD
Section Editor
Charles J Lockwood, MD, MHCM
Deputy Editor
Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG


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. In many cases, small absolute differences in outcome among surgical techniques are not clinically important; in these settings, time and cost savings assume greater importance [1].

Other aspects of cesarean delivery are reviewed separately:

(See "Cesarean delivery: Preoperative planning and patient preparation".)

(See "Anesthesia for cesarean delivery".)

(See "Cesarean delivery: Postoperative issues".)

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Dec 01, 2017.
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 ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Temmerman M. Caesarean section surgical techniques: all equally safe. Lancet 2016; 388:8.
  2. 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.
  3. Brown SR, Goodfellow PB. Transverse verses midline incisions for abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD005199.
  4. Bickenbach KA, Karanicolas PJ, Ammori JB, et al. Up and down or side to side? A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of incision on outcomes after abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 2013; 206:400.
  5. 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.
  6. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; :CD004453.
  7. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:431.
  8. Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M, et al. Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0114190.
  9. Wylie BJ, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Comparison of transverse and vertical skin incision for emergency cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1134.
  10. Aird LN, Brown CJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical skin incisions. Am J Surg 2012; 204:216.
  11. Ly J, Mittal A, Windsor J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg 2012; 99:613.
  12. Ahmad NZ, Ahmed A. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of surgical scalpel or diathermy in making abdominal skin incisions. Ann Surg 2011; 253:8.
  13. Elbohoty AE, Gomaa MF, Abdelaleim M, et al. Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41:1541.
  14. 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.
  15. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78:615.
  16. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:221.
  17. 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.
  18. Giacalone PL, Daures JP, Vignal J, et al. Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:745.
  19. Ayers JW, Morley GW. Surgical incision for cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70:706.
  20. Wood RM, Simon H, Oz AU. Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1999; 44:788.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. CORONIS collaborative group, Abalos E, Addo V, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388:62.
  24. 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.
  25. Hibbard LT. Extraperitoneal cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1985; 28:711.
  26. Kroon N, Reginald PW. Parietal peritoneal closure at caesarean section revisited. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27:159.
  27. O'Neill HA, Egan G, Walsh CA, et al. 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.
  28. Luthra G, Gawade P, Starikov R, Markenson G. Uterine incision-to-delivery interval and perinatal outcomes in transverse versus vertical incisions in preterm cesarean deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 26:1788.
  29. Schutterman EB, Grimes DA. Comparative safety of the low transverse versus the low vertical uterine incision for cesarean delivery of breech infants. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61:593.
  30. 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.
  31. Patterson LS, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with classic and inverted T cesarean incisions. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:633.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. Saad AF, Rahman M, Costantine MM, Saade GR. Blunt versus sharp uterine incision expansion during low transverse cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:684.e1.
  35. 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; :CD004732.
  36. 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.
  37. Fontanarosa M, Fontanarosa N. Incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal wellbeing during cesarean section. Minerva Ginecol 2008; 60:23.
  38. 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.
  39. Gordon A, McKechnie EJ, Jeffery H. Pediatric presence at cesarean section: justified or not? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193:599.
  40. Moore ER, Bergman N, Anderson GC, Medley N. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11:CD003519.
  41. 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.
  42. Anorlu RI, Maholwana B, Hofmeyr GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD004737.
  43. 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.
  44. Zaphiratos V, George RB, Boyd JC, Habib AS. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62:1209.
  45. Jacobs-Jokhan D, Hofmeyr G. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD000085.
  46. 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.
  47. Stafford MK, Pitman MC, Nanthakumaran N, Smith JR. Blunt-tipped versus sharp-tipped needles: wound morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 18:18.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. Greenberg JA, Einarsson JI. The use of bidirectional barbed suture in laparoscopic myomectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15:621.
  51. 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.
  52. Yasmin S, Sadaf J, Fatima N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat caesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2011; 21:522.
  53. Ceci O, Cantatore C, Scioscia M, et al. Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012; 38:1302.
  54. 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.
  55. Bennich G, Rudnicki M, Wilken-Jensen C, et al. Impact of adding a second layer to a single unlocked closure of a Cesarean uterine incision: randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47:417.
  56. Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V, et al. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:453.
  57. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, et al. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50:578.
  58. 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.
  59. Liabsuetrakul T, Peeyananjarassri K. Mechanical dilatation of the cervix at non-labour caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD008019.
  60. Nabhan AF, Allam NE, Hamed Abdel-Aziz Salama M. Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; :CD011876.
  61. Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 251:843.
  62. Ceydeli A, Rucinski J, Wise L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg 2005; 62:220.
  63. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386:1254.
  64. 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.
  65. Maxwell GL, Soisson AP, Brittain PC, et al. Repair of transversely incised abdominal wall fascia in a rabbit model. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87:65.
  66. Pergialiotis V, Prodromidou A, Perrea DN, Doumouchtsis SK. The impact of subcutaneous tissue suturing at caesarean section on wound complications: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2017; 124:1018.
  67. Anderson ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD004663.
  68. 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.
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. Viney R, Isaacs C, Chelmow D. Intra-abdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119:1106.
  72. 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.
  73. 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.
  74. Walfisch A, Beloosesky R, Shrim A, Hallak M. Adhesion prevention after cesarean delivery: evidence, and lack of it. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:446.
  75. 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.
  76. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:1226.
  77. Al-Sunaidi M, Tulandi T. Adhesion-related bowel obstruction after hysterectomy for benign conditions. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108:1162.
  78. Albright CM, Rouse DJ. Adhesion barriers at cesarean delivery: advertising compared with the evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:157.
  79. Kiefer DG, Muscat JC, Santorelli J, et al. Effectiveness and short-term safety of modified sodium hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose at cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214:373.e1.
  80. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; :CD000163.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG 2011; 118:410.
  84. 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.
  85. Gates S, Anderson ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD004549.
  86. CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010; 117:1366.
  87. 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.
  88. Mackeen AD, Schuster M, Berghella V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212:621.e1.
  89. Rubin JP, Hunstad JP, Polynice A, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing absorbable barbed sutures versus conventional absorbable sutures for dermal closure in open surgical procedures. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34:272.
  90. Koide S, Smoll NR, Liew J, et al. A randomized 'N-of-1' single blinded clinical trial of barbed dermal sutures vs. smooth sutures in elective plastic surgery shows differences in scar appearance two-years post-operatively. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68:1003.
  91. Sah AP. Is There an Advantage to Knotless Barbed Suture in TKA Wound Closure? A Randomized Trial in Simultaneous Bilateral TKAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473:2019.
  92. Hammond DC. Barbed sutures in plastic surgery: a personal experience. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33:32S.
  93. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD004662.
  94. Nabhan AF. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 100:69.
  95. Chedraui PA, Insuasti DF. Intravenous nitroglycerin in the management of retained placenta. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 56:61.
  96. Jha S, Chiu JW, Yeo IS. Intravenous nitro-glycerine versus general anaesthesia for placental extraction--a sequential comparison. Med Sci Monit 2003; 9:CS63.
  97. 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.
  98. 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.
  99. Gabriele R, Conte M, Izzo L, Basso L. Cesarean section and hernia repair: simultaneous approach. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010; 36:944.
  100. Ochsenbein-Kölble N, Demartines N, Ochsenbein-Imhof N, Zimmermann R. Cesarean section and simultaneous hernia repair. Arch Surg 2004; 139:893.
Topic Outline