Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

The impact between peritoneal closure and non-closure on the risk of adhesion in caesarean section: a systematic review



Abstract

Background: Caesarean section is one of the most frequently performed major surgical procedures worldwide. Peritoneal sutures in the cesarean section are performed via absorbable or delayed sutures. There is controversy over the choice of technique (continuous or interrupted) to close this layer, even among surgeons who believe in closing this layer. Overall, there are still differing opinions regarding the closure of this layer. This study examines how the study of the impact of peritoneal closure with no closure at the cesarean section on the risk of adhesions.
Methods: Systematic Literature Review Research is the method selected by researchers in this study. Researchers will describe facts, data and information obtained from literature studies such as books and journals to research results related to the research topic. The quality of the articles was reviewed based on PRISMA and PICO guidelines so that as many as 7 articles were synthesized in the final review report from the literature.
Results: It is known that the incidence of births worldwide by Caesarean section (CS) is increasing. Many births after CS have previously been performed by repeat surgery, either with elective CS or after an unsuccessful delivery attempt. The formation of these adhesions is associated with increased maternal morbidity in patients with recurrent CS. In studies, non-closure of the peritoneum appears to save time and costs and therefore lacks the adhesions that cause infertility. However, not closing the parietal peritoneum will cause adhesions without causing infertility. These adhesions can cause long operating times, recovery, and increased postoperative pain in the second cesarean section.
Conclusion: Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal lining in the cesarean section can provide benefits or not. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate whether this step should be omitted.

Keywords: Adhesion Caesarean Peritoneal Risk

References

  1. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(8):CD000163.
  2. Poole JH. Adhesions following cesarean delivery: a review of their occurrence, consequences and preventative management using adhesion barriers. Womens Health (Lond). 2013;9(5):467-477.
  3. Sorrentino F, Greco F, Palieri T, Vasciaveo L, Stabile G, Carlucci S, et al. Caesarean Section on Maternal Request-Ethical and Juridic Issues: A Narrative Review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(9):1255.
  4. Wilkinson TRV, Chauhan MK, Trivedi I. Peritoneal closure or non-closure in open appendectomy: a reality or a myth. International Surgery Journal. 2018;5(9):3102-3106.
  5. Mahdi MH, Hamzah I, Khalid H. Peritoneal Closure Versus Non Closure at Cesarean Section. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research. 2019;6(3):22–24.
  6. Tofigh AM, Jafarzadeh MH. Comparison of peritoneal closure versus non-closure after non-infected elective laparotomy with a midline incision: A randomized clinical trial. Shiraz E Medical Journal. 2021;22(9):10–15.
  7. Ten Broek RP, Kok-Krant N, Bakkum EA, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H. Different surgical techniques to reduce post-operative adhesion formation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(1):12-25.
  8. Lee KS, Wang YL, Huang WC, Yang JH, Huang JP. Limited efficacy with additional adverse effect of anti-adhesion barrier at primary cesarean section. J Formos Med Assoc. 2022;121(1 Pt 1):227-236.
  9. Roofthooft E, Joshi GP, Rawal N, Van de Velde M; PROSPECT Working Group* of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy and supported by the Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association. PROSPECT guideline for elective caesarean section: updated systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(5):665-680.
  10. Bhaumik N. Advantage of Non-Closure of the Peritoneum At Caesarean Section. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2016;5(01):79–81.
  11. Mooij R, Mwampagatwa IH, van Dillen J, Stekelenburg J. Association between surgical technique, adhesions and morbidity in women with repeat caesarean section: a retrospective study in a rural hospital in Western Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):582.
  12. Kokanalı D, Kokanalı MK, Topcu HO, Ersak B, Tascı Y. Are the cesarean section skin scar characteristics associated with intraabdominal adhesions located at surgical and non-surgical sites. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(10):839-843.
  13. Çim N, Elçi E, Güneş Elçi G, Almalı N, Yıldızhan R. Are the skin scar characteristics and closure of the parietal peritoneum associated with pelvic adhesions?. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;15(1):28-32.
  14. Gultekin N. The Closure Non Closure of the Parietal Peritoneum in the Caeserean Section. Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2017;7(5):5–8.
  15. Takreem A. Comparison of Peritoneal Closure Versus Non-Closure During Caesarean Section. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2015;27(1):78-80.
  16. Anderson ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2004(4):CD004663.
  17. Seyam E, Ibrahim EM, Youseff AM, Khalifa EM, Hefzy E. Laparoscopic Management of Adhesions Developed after Peritoneal Nonclosure in Primary Cesarean Section Delivery. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2018;2018:6901764.
  18. Sholapurkar SL. Etiology of Cesarean Uterine Scar Defect (Niche): Detailed Critical Analysis of Hypotheses and Prevention Strategies and Peritoneal Closure Debate. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(3):166-173.
  19. Bjørnstad J, Ræder J. Post-operative pain after caesarean section. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2020;140(7).
  20. Mokhtari M, Yaghmaei M, Akbari Jami N, Roudbari M, Jalalvand D. Prediction of Intraperitoneal Adhesions in Repeated Cesarean Section Using Sliding Sign, Striae Gravidarum, and Cesarean Scar. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2022;36:44.
  21. Jaafar ZAA, Obeid RZ, Salman DA. Skin markers and the prediction of intraabdominal adhesion during second Cesarean delivery. Ginekol Pol. 2019;90(6):325-330.
  22. Di Buono G, Ricupati F, Maienza E, Gulotta L, Buscemi S, Agrusa A. Small bowel obstruction after caesarean section: Laparoscopic management. Two case reports. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2020;77S(Suppl):S96-S100.
  23. Rahayu EP, Nisa F, Andriani RAD, Anggraini FD. The effectiveness of the ERACS (Enhanced Recovery After Caesarean Surgery) method on postoperative pain and the onset of colostrym excretion. Bali Medical Journal. 2023;12(2):1259-1263.
  24. Firman, Koentjoro T, Widodo KH, Utarini A. The effect of lean six sigma toward maternal emergency lead time in Penembahan Senopati Hospital, Bantul, Yogyakarta. Bali Medical Journal. 2019;8(2):435-443.
  25. Mardiawan D, Prawitasari S. Achievement of decision-to-delivery interval in emergency cesarean section category 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Bali Medical Journal. 2023;12(1):838-842.

How to Cite

Junardi, T. Y., & Taura Avensia. (2023). The impact between peritoneal closure and non-closure on the risk of adhesion in caesarean section: a systematic review. Intisari Sains Medis, 14(2), 847–851. https://doi.org/10.15562/ism.v14i2.1750
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

HTML
0

Total
0

Share

Search Panel

Thomas Yohan Junardi
Google Scholar
Pubmed
ISM Journal

Taura Avensia
Google Scholar
Pubmed
ISM Journal