Abstract
Objectives: This study compared the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions for cesarean sections by using visual analog scale (VAS) scores and perioperative findings. Patients and Methods: One hundred pregnant patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group had Joel-Cohen incisions and the other group had the standard Pfannenstiel incision, both by the same surgeon. Intraoperative and postperative findings including the VAS scores of the patients were recorded.Results: The median total operation time for the Joel-Cohen group was 1500 (1140-3600) seconds and was 1740 (1140-3600) seconds for the Pfannenstiel group. The mean extraction time of the fetus was shorter for the Joel-Cohen group (146.9±74.4 seconds) when compared to Pfannenstiel group (193.9±56.5 seconds). Postoperative pain assessment by VAS was similar for both groups.Conclusion: When urgent extraction of the fetus is needed the Joel-Cohen incision should be chosen for cesarean sections. In other cases, the Joel-Cohen incision technique has no advantage over the standard Pfannenstiel incision so far as postoperative pain is concerned
References
- 1. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Moien M, Kosary CL. 1989 U.S. cesarean section rate steadies: VBCA rate rises to nearly one in five. Birth 1991; 18: 73–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1991.tb00063.x
- 2. Burke JJ II, Gallup DG. Incisions for gynecologic surgery. In: Rock JA, Jones III HW, editors. Te Linde’s Operative gynecology Tenth Edition. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams& Wilkins, 2008: 246-79.
- 3. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:615-21. doi:10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780709.x
- 4. Stark M, Finkel AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 53: 121-2.
- 5. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for cesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:221-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 0528.1999.tb08234.x
- 6. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean Section. Clinical Guideline. London: RCOG Press, 2004.
- 7. Stark M, Chavkin Y, Kupfersztain C, Guedj P, Finkel, AR. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995; 48: 273-6. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(94)02306-J
- 8. Björklund K, Kimaro U, Urassa E, Lindmark G. Introduction of the Misgav Ladach cesarean section at an African tertiary centre: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 107: 209–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11691.x
- 9. Darj E, Nordström ML. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 37–41. doi:10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780109.x
- 10. Ferrari AG, Frigerio L, Candotti G, et al. Modified Stark procedure for cesarean section. First Italian experience. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1997; 3: 95–102.
- 11. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Balestreri D, et al. A randomized clinical trial of two surgical techniques for cesarean section. Am J Perinatol 1998; 15: 589–94. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-994066
- 12. Nabhan A.F. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008;100: 69–75. doi: 10.1016/j. ijgo.2007.07.011
- 13. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Raio L, et al. Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does itmake a difference? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:1040-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811108.x
- 14. Mathai M, Ambersheth S, George A. Comparison of two transverse abdominal incisions for cesarean delivery. Int J of Gynecol and Obstet 2002; 78: 47–9.
- 15. Ferrari AG, Frigerio LG, Candotti G, et al. Can Joel-Cohen incision and single layer reconstruction reduce cesarean section morbidity? Int J Gynecol Obstet 2001; 72: 135-43. doi: 10.1016/S0020- 7292(00)00315-5
Sezaryende kullanılan iki farklı abdominal insizyon tekniğinin vizüel analog ağrı skorlarının karşılaştırılması: Prospektif randomize bir çalışma
Abstract
Amaç: Bu çalışmada Joel-Cohen insizyon ve Pfannenstiel insizyon
kullanılarak yapılmış sezaryen operasyonlarında vizüel analog
skala ile ağrı değerlendirilmesinin ve perioperatif bulguların
karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Hastalar ve Yöntem: Yüz gebe hasta iki gruba randomize
edilmiştir. Bir gruba Joel-Cohen insizyon diğer gruba ise standart
Pfannenstiel insizyon uygulanmıştır. İntraoperatif bulgular ve
vizüel analog skorlama dahil postoperatif bulgular kayıt edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Joel-Cohen insizyon grubunda ortanca toplam
ameliyat süresi 1500 (1140-3600) saniye, Pfannenstiel insizyon
grubunda benzer olarak ortanca toplam ameliyat süresi 1740 (1140-
3600) saniye olarak bulunmuştur. Ortalama bebek çıkartma süreleri
karşılaştırıldığında Joel-Cohen grubunda (146,9±74,4 saniye)
Pfannenstiel grubuna (193,9±56,5 saniye) göre bu sürenin daha kısa
olduğu bulunmuştur. Postoperatif VAS ağrı değerlendirilmesi her
iki grupta benzer bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Bebeğin acil çıkarılması gereken durumlarda JoelCohen
insizyon tercih edilmelidir. Diğer olgularda Joel-Cohen
insizyonun Pfannenstiel insizyona postoperatif ağrı açısından
üstünlüğü yoktur.
References
- 1. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Moien M, Kosary CL. 1989 U.S. cesarean section rate steadies: VBCA rate rises to nearly one in five. Birth 1991; 18: 73–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1991.tb00063.x
- 2. Burke JJ II, Gallup DG. Incisions for gynecologic surgery. In: Rock JA, Jones III HW, editors. Te Linde’s Operative gynecology Tenth Edition. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams& Wilkins, 2008: 246-79.
- 3. Holmgren G, Sjöholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:615-21. doi:10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780709.x
- 4. Stark M, Finkel AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 53: 121-2.
- 5. Wallin G, Fall O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for cesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:221-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 0528.1999.tb08234.x
- 6. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean Section. Clinical Guideline. London: RCOG Press, 2004.
- 7. Stark M, Chavkin Y, Kupfersztain C, Guedj P, Finkel, AR. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995; 48: 273-6. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(94)02306-J
- 8. Björklund K, Kimaro U, Urassa E, Lindmark G. Introduction of the Misgav Ladach cesarean section at an African tertiary centre: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 107: 209–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11691.x
- 9. Darj E, Nordström ML. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 37–41. doi:10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780109.x
- 10. Ferrari AG, Frigerio L, Candotti G, et al. Modified Stark procedure for cesarean section. First Italian experience. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1997; 3: 95–102.
- 11. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Balestreri D, et al. A randomized clinical trial of two surgical techniques for cesarean section. Am J Perinatol 1998; 15: 589–94. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-994066
- 12. Nabhan A.F. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008;100: 69–75. doi: 10.1016/j. ijgo.2007.07.011
- 13. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Raio L, et al. Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does itmake a difference? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002;81:1040-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811108.x
- 14. Mathai M, Ambersheth S, George A. Comparison of two transverse abdominal incisions for cesarean delivery. Int J of Gynecol and Obstet 2002; 78: 47–9.
- 15. Ferrari AG, Frigerio LG, Candotti G, et al. Can Joel-Cohen incision and single layer reconstruction reduce cesarean section morbidity? Int J Gynecol Obstet 2001; 72: 135-43. doi: 10.1016/S0020- 7292(00)00315-5
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | September 30, 2015 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2013 Volume: 26 Issue: 3 |
