Closure or nonclosure of the visceral peritoneum at cesarean delivery. A randomized controlled study of peritoneal closure at cesarean section. A randomized study of closure of the peritoneum at cesarean delivery. Randomized study of non-closure of peritoneum in lower segment cesarean section.
Our purpose was to determine whether nonclosure of the visceral peritoneum at low transverse cesarean delivery has advantages over suture peritonization with regard to postoperative morbidity.
                A prospective randomized trial of 549 women undergoing cesarean section was carried out; 262 were randomized to nonclosure and 287 to closure of the visceral peritoneum. Perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management decisions were made without reference to treatment groups. Statistical analysis compared intraoperative and postoperative outcome between the two groups.
                Operating and anesthesia times were significantly shorter in patients receiving nonclosure. The incidence of febrile morbidity and cystitis and the need for antibiotics and narcotics were all significantly greater when the peritoneum was closed. Hospital stay was significantly shorter after nonclosure.
                Nonclosure of the visceral peritoneum is associated with lower febrile and infectious morbidity. Routine closure of the visceral peritoneum should be abandoned at cesarean delivery. To assess the benefits or problems that may be associated with peritoneal closure at cesarean section.
                A randomized-controlled study of women undergoing cesarean section in Sultan Qaboos University Hospital Maternity Unit. After the decision is taken for cesarean section, women were randomized to either repair of peritoneum using standard technique or non-repair of peritoneum. Duration of operation, maternal morbidity, blood loss assessed by post-operative hemoglobin change and requirement of transfusion, post operative infection, thromboembolic disease, and length of hospital stay were analyzed in 2 groups of patients. Sixty women were randomized into the study, 30 group A, had peritoneal closure and 30, group B, and had non-closure.
                The average duration of operation for group A was 61.9+/-12.734, and for group B was 53.56 +/-11.209 (p< 0.01 statistically significant). There was no statistically significant difference in the length of stay, estimated blood loss, the mean drop in hemoglobin, postoperative pyrexia, and wound infection rate between the 2 groups.
                Our study has confirmed the previous study findings, and has shown that there are no advantages in suturing of the peritoneum in terms of blood loss, blood transfusion, operation duration, postoperative pyrexia and wound infection. In fact non-suturing of the peritoneum was associated with shorter operation duration (p< 0.01 significant), and reduced cost. This study was conducted to test the hypothesis that nonclosure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum during low transverse cervical cesarean delivery is not associated with increased intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. One hundred thirteen patients scheduled for low transverse cervical cesarean were randomized to either closure of both the visceral and parietal peritoneum with absorbable suture (N = 59) or no peritoneal closure (N = 54). Patients were cared for in the usual postoperative manner without reference to treatment group. There were no demographic differences between the groups and no differences in method(s) of anesthesia, operative indication(s), or use of peripartum epidural narcotics. The incidence of fever, endometritis, or wound infection was similar between groups. There were no differences in the number of patients requiring parenteral narcotic analgesia or in the number of doses per patient. The number of oral analgesic doses was significantly greater with closure than without (P = .014). The frequency with which postoperative ileus was diagnosed in each group was similar, and there was no difference regarding the day on which patients were advanced to liquid or select diets. Bowel stimulants were administered more frequently to the closure than to non-closure patients (P = .03). The average operating time was shorter for the open group than for the closure group (P less than .005). We conclude that non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at low transverse cervical cesarean delivery appears to have no adverse effect on immediate postoperative recovery, may decrease postoperative narcotic requirements, allows less complicated return of bowel function, and provides a simplified and shorter surgical procedure. The advantages of non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at lower segment cesarean section seems to be evident but in the reports published so far, the number of patients studied has been relatively small and the follow-up periods short. It is obviously of value to reconfirm such important observation in several institutions and therefore, in 1991, we decided to study non-closure of the peritoneum in lower segment cesarean section in a large series of patients with long-term follow-up of at least one year.
                A prospective randomized study of 361 patients undergoing lower segment cesarean section in a University Affiliated Hospital, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates. The operative technique was randomized to include either non-closure of both visceral and parietal peritoneum (study group, n = 179) or closure of both layers (control group, n = 182). Patients were followed up according to a study protocol. The nursing staff and the obstetricians responsible for data collection were unaware as to which of the two groups the patients belonged to. Student-t test and Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis of the results, where appropriate, with a p < 0.05 considered probability level to reflect significant differences.
                Postoperative febrile morbidity and wound infection were significantly lower in the study group as compared to the control group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05 respectively). The incidence of wound dehiscence, urinary tract infection and the time to opening of the bowels postoperatively were similar in the two groups. In the non-closure group, the average operating time was significantly shorter by 7.9 minutes (p < 0.01) and the hospital stay was one day less (p < 0.01). There were no patients with late postoperative complications or readmissions during 2-5 years of follow-up that could be attributed to complications associated with lower segment cesarean section.
                Non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at lower segment cesarean section is associated with fewer postoperative complications, is more cost effective and is simpler than the traditional operative technique of closing both peritoneal layers.
There is no evidence for any short-term or long-term advantage in peritoneal closure for non-obstetric operations. If further trials are performed on this topic, they should have an adequate period of follow-up and adequate measures should be taken to ensure that the results are not subject to bias.