Gutiérrez José Gabriel Tamayo, Coló José Antonio Sereno, Arreola María Sandra Huape
Servicio de Ginecología y Obstetricia, Hospital General Dr. Miguel Silva, Secretaría de Salud, Morelia, Michoacán, México.
Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2008 Feb;76(2):75-80.
The cesarean section was designed to extract to the neoborn, when the childbirth becomes difficult by the natural routes. The institutional obstetrical work demands long surgical time and high raw materials; therefore, simpler procedures must be implemented.
To compare traditional cesarean section vs Misgav-Ladach technique to assess surgical time, and hospital stay and costs.
Forty-eight pregnant patients at term with obstetrical indication for cesarean delivery were randomized in two groups: 24 were submitted to traditional cesarean and 24 to Misgav-Ladach technique. The outcomes included surgical time, bleeding, amount of sutures employed, pain intensity and some others adverse effects.
The surgical time with Misgav-Ladach technique was shorter compared with traditional cesarean section, bleeding was consistently lesser and pain was also low. None adverse effects were registered in both groups.
Although short follow-up showed significant operative time reduction and less bleeding, longer follow-up should be desirable in order to confirm no abdominal adhesions.
剖宫产术旨在当自然分娩困难时娩出新生儿。机构产科工作需要较长的手术时间和高昂的原材料；因此，必须实施更简单的手术方法。
比较传统剖宫产术与米斯加夫-拉达赫技术，以评估手术时间、住院时间和费用。
48例足月妊娠且有剖宫产产科指征的孕妇被随机分为两组：24例行传统剖宫产术，24例行米斯加夫-拉达赫技术。观察指标包括手术时间、出血量、缝线使用数量、疼痛强度及其他一些不良反应。
与传统剖宫产术相比，米斯加夫-拉达赫技术的手术时间更短，出血量持续较少，疼痛也较轻。两组均未出现不良反应。
尽管短期随访显示手术时间显著缩短且出血减少，但为了确认无腹部粘连，进行更长时间的随访是可取的。
