IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i18p6894-d416726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Health Impact of Surgical Techniques and Assistive Methods Used in Cesarean Deliveries: A Systemic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Hsuan Wang

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Tzu-Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu-Chi Medical Foundation, Taipei 231, Taiwan)

  • Kok-Min Seow

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei 111, Taiwan
    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan)

  • Li-Ru Chen

    (Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan
    Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan)

  • Kuo-Hu Chen

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Tzu-Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu-Chi Medical Foundation, Taipei 231, Taiwan
    School of Medicine, Tzu-Chi University, Hualien 970, Taiwan)

Abstract

Cesarean delivery is one of the most frequently performed surgeries in women throughout the world. However, the most optimal technique to minimize maternal and fetal morbidities is still being debated due to various clinical situations and surgeons’ preferences. The contentious topics are the use of vacuum devices other than traditional fundal pressure to assist in the delivery of the fetal head and the techniques of uterine repair used during cesarean deliveries. There are two well-described techniques for suturing the uterus: The uterus can be repaired either temporarily exteriorized (out of abdominal cavity) or in situ (within the peritoneal cavity). Numerous studies have attempted to compare these two techniques in different aspects, including operative time, blood loss, and maternal and fetal outcomes. This review provides an overview of the assistive method of vacuum devices compared with fundal pressure, and the two surgical techniques for uterine repair following cesarean delivery. This descriptive literature review was performed to address important issues for clinical practitioners. It aims to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the assistive methods and surgical techniques used in cesarean deliveries. All of the articles were retrieved from the databases Medline and PubMed using the search terms cesarean delivery, vacuum, and exteriorization. The searching results revealed that after exclusion, there were 9 and 13 eligible articles for vacuum assisted cesarean delivery and uterine exteriorization, respectively. Although several studies have concluded vacuum assistance for fetal extraction as a simple, effective, and beneficial method during fetal head delivery during cesarean delivery, further research is still required to clarify the safety of vacuum assistance. In general, compared to the use of in situ uterine repairs during cesarean delivery, uterine exteriorization for repairs may have benefits of less blood loss and shorter operative time. However, it may also carry a higher risk of intraoperative complications such as nausea and vomiting, uterine atony, and a longer time to the return of bowel function. Clinicians should consider these factors during shared decision-making with their pregnant patients to determine the most suitable techniques for cesarean deliveries.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Hsuan Wang & Kok-Min Seow & Li-Ru Chen & Kuo-Hu Chen, 2020. "The Health Impact of Surgical Techniques and Assistive Methods Used in Cesarean Deliveries: A Systemic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6894-:d:416726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6894/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6894/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6894-:d:416726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.