article · Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Background: The myometrium at the location of the CS (caesarean section) scars, also known as residual myometrium thickness (RMT), is larger after a double-layer uterine closure procedure than following a single-layer one. It may lessen the formation of a niche that is the myometrium’s disruption at the location of the scar of the uterus. Gynecological manifestations, obstetric problems in a future pregnancy and birth, and maybe subfertility are linked to thin RMT and a niche. Objective: To ascertain if double-layer unlocked closure of the uterus is better than single-layer one in terms of post-menstrual spotting and niche development following a first CS. Patients and Methods: In this randomized clinical study, 287 patients were evaluated for qualifying. Of all eligible individuals, 57 patients were excluded from the study based on the inclusion criteria. Results: The variation in ages, gestational age, body mass index (BMI), and cesarean section indications between the two assigned groups is statistically insignificant. However, postmenstrual spotting was statistically significantly more common in single-layer group compared to in double-group. The current study revealed ultrasound findings suggestive of niche formation was statistically significantly more common in single-layer group compared to in double-layer group. Conclusion: As evident from the current study, it demonstrates the advantages of double-layer unlocked closure of the uterus over single-layer one in terms of post-menstrual spotting and niche development following first-time cs. Thus, we deduced that fewer niches are formed, and fewer menstrual spotting occurs in the presence of double unlocked layers closure. To ascertain the impact of uterus closure method on post-operative niche development and the risk of obstetrics and gynaecological problems, further prospective trials with extended follow-up periods are required.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2024.141007
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.