Anderson E R, Gates S
Wellcome Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, 420/6 Rajvithi Road, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;2004(4):CD004663. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004663.pub2.
There is a variety of techniques for closing the abdominal wall during caesarean section. Some methods may be better in terms of postoperative recovery and other important outcomes.
To compare the effects of alternative techniques for closure of the rectus sheath and subcutaneous fat on maternal health and healthcare resource use.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2003), EMBASE (1980 to September 2003), CINAHL (1983 to September 2003) and CAB Health (1973 to September 2003), and the reference lists of included articles.
Randomised trials making any of the following comparisons: (a) any suturing technique or material used for closure of the rectus sheath versus any other; (b) closure versus non-closure of subcutaneous fat; (c) any suturing technique or material used for closure of the subcutaneous fat versus any other; (d) any type of needle for repair of the abdominal wall in caesarean section versus any other; (e) any other comparison of methods of abdominal wall closure.
Both reviewers evaluated trials for eligibility and methodological quality without consideration of their results.
Seven studies involving 2056 women were included. The risk of haematoma or seroma was reduced with fat closure compared with non-closure (relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.82), as was the risk of 'wound complication' (haematoma, seroma, wound infection or wound separation) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88). No difference in the risk of wound infection alone or other short-term outcomes was found. No long-term outcomes were reported. There was no difference in the risk of wound infection between blunt needles and sharp needles in one small study. No studies were found examining suture techniques or materials for closure of the rectus sheath or subcutaneous fat.
Closure of the subcutaneous fat may reduce wound complications but it is unclear to what extent these differences affect the well-being and satisfaction of the women concerned.
Further trials are justified to investigate whether the apparent increased risk of haematoma or seroma with non-closure of the subcutaneous fat is real. These should use a broader range of short- and long-term outcomes, and ensure that they are adequately powered to detect clinically important differences. Further research comparing blunt and sharp needles is justified, as are trials evaluating suturing materials and suturing techniques for the rectus sheath.
剖宫产术中关闭腹壁有多种技术。就术后恢复及其他重要结局而言,某些方法可能更佳。
比较腹直肌鞘和皮下脂肪闭合的替代技术对产妇健康及医疗资源使用的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2003年9月)、MEDLINE(1966年至2003年9月)、EMBASE(1980年至2003年9月)、CINAHL(1983年至2003年9月)和CAB Health(1973年至2003年9月),以及纳入文章的参考文献列表。
进行以下任何比较的随机试验:(a)用于闭合腹直肌鞘的任何缝合技术或材料与其他任何技术或材料;(b)皮下脂肪的闭合与不闭合;(c)用于闭合皮下脂肪的任何缝合技术或材料与其他任何技术或材料;(d)剖宫产术中用于修复腹壁的任何类型的针与其他任何针;(e)腹壁闭合方法的任何其他比较。
两位评价者评估试验的纳入资格和方法学质量,而不考虑其结果。
纳入了7项涉及2056名女性的研究。与不闭合皮下脂肪相比,闭合皮下脂肪可降低血肿或血清肿的风险(相对危险度(RR)0.52,95%置信区间(CI)0.33至0.82),“伤口并发症”(血肿、血清肿、伤口感染或伤口裂开)的风险也降低(RR 0.68,95%CI 0.52至0.88)。未发现单纯伤口感染风险或其他短期结局存在差异。未报告长期结局。一项小型研究中,钝针和锐针在伤口感染风险方面无差异。未找到检查腹直肌鞘或皮下脂肪闭合的缝合技术或材料的研究。
闭合皮下脂肪可能减少伤口并发症,但尚不清楚这些差异在多大程度上影响相关女性的健康和满意度。
有理由进行进一步试验,以调查皮下脂肪不闭合时血肿或血清肿风险明显增加是否属实。这些试验应采用更广泛的短期和长期结局,并确保有足够的检验效能来检测临床上的重要差异。有理由进行进一步研究比较钝针和锐针,以及评估腹直肌鞘缝合材料和缝合技术的试验。