Display options
Share it on

J Prenat Med. 2014 Apr-Jun;8(3):36-41.

Comparison between modified Misgav-Ladach and Pfannenstiel-Kerr techniques for Cesarean section: review of literature.

Journal of prenatal medicine

Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Ilaria Marilli, Pietro Cignini, Francesco Padula, Laura D'Emidio, Lucia Mangiafico, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda, Ferdinando Antonio Gulino, Stefano Cianci, Antonio Biondi, Claudio Giorlandino

Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
  2. Institute of Obstetric and Gynecologic Pathology, Department of Surgery, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, S. Bambino Hospital, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
  3. Department of Gynecologic Ultrasound Imaging, Altamedica Fetal Maternal Medical Centre, Rome, Italy.
  4. Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.

PMID: 26265999 PMCID: PMC4510561

Abstract

In the last decades cesarean section rates increased in many countries becoming the most performed intraperitoneal surgical procedure. Despite its worldwide spread, a general consensus on the most appropriate technique to use has not yet been reached. The operative technique performed is made chiefly on the basis of the individual experience and preference of operators, the characteristics of patients, timing and urgency of intervention. We compared the two most known and used techniques, modified Misgav-Ladach and traditional Pfannenstiel-Kerr, and analyzed their impact on primary, short- and long-term outcomes and outcome related to health service use.

Keywords: Caesarean section; Joel-Cohen incision; Pfannenstiel-Kerr; modified Misgav-Ladach

References

  1. Semin Perinatol. 2012 Oct;36(5):308-14 - PubMed
  2. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;209(4):294-306 - PubMed
  3. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Aug 27;13:165 - PubMed
  4. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(4):429-34 - PubMed
  5. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jul;116(1):43-50 - PubMed
  6. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Nov;286(5):1141-6 - PubMed
  7. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):672-8 - PubMed
  8. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999 Aug;78(7):615-21 - PubMed
  9. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;42(2):207-12 - PubMed
  10. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 03;10(2):e0114190 - PubMed
  11. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;201(3):320.e1-6 - PubMed
  12. J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Mar;33(3):475-81 - PubMed
  13. NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2010 Mar 10;27(3):1-42 - PubMed
  14. Semin Perinatol. 2010 Aug;34(4):267-71 - PubMed
  15. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;190(2):428-34 - PubMed
  16. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD003577 - PubMed
  17. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jun;89(3):319-31 - PubMed
  18. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2012 Dec;41(8):697-707 - PubMed
  19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;(5):CD004453 - PubMed
  20. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Oct;115(1):5-10 - PubMed
  21. BJOG. 2007 Mar;114(3):253-63 - PubMed
  22. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 22;(7):CD004732 - PubMed
  23. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 11;(8):CD000163 - PubMed
  24. Acta Clin Croat. 2011 Mar;50(1):95-9 - PubMed
  25. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013 Oct;3(4):577-82 - PubMed

Publication Types