Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries

Nanna Maaløe; Anna J M Aabakke; Niels J Secher

doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries

Nanna Maaløe, Anna J M Aabakke, Niels J Secher

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While transverse incision is the recommended entry technique for cesarean delivery in high-income countries, it is our experience that midline incision is still used routinely in many low-income settings. Accordingly, international guidelines lack uniformity on this matter. Although evidence is limited, the literature suggests important advantages of the transverse incision, with lower risk of long-term disabilities such as wound disruption and hernia. Also, potential extra time spent on this incision appears not to impact neonatal outcome. Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a change in guidelines for low-income settings in which resources are limited for treating complications that may be life threatening.

Original language	English
Journal	International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Volume	125
Issue number	1
Pages (from-to)	1-2
Number of pages	2
ISSN	0020-7292
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030
Publication status	Published - Apr 2014

Keywords

Cesarean Section
Developing Countries
Female
Humans
Infant, Newborn
International Cooperation
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Pregnancy
Time Factors

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

Cite this

@article{49533c7f7338472daf3bf16eea664bc3,

title = "Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries",

abstract = "While transverse incision is the recommended entry technique for cesarean delivery in high-income countries, it is our experience that midline incision is still used routinely in many low-income settings. Accordingly, international guidelines lack uniformity on this matter. Although evidence is limited, the literature suggests important advantages of the transverse incision, with lower risk of long-term disabilities such as wound disruption and hernia. Also, potential extra time spent on this incision appears not to impact neonatal outcome. Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a change in guidelines for low-income settings in which resources are limited for treating complications that may be life threatening.",

keywords = "Cesarean Section, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, International Cooperation, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Pregnancy, Time Factors",

author = "Nanna Maal{\o}e and Aabakke, {Anna J M} and Secher, {Niels J}",

year = "2014",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030",

language = "English",

volume = "125",

pages = "1--2",

journal = "International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics",

issn = "0020-7292",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries

AU - Maaløe, Nanna

AU - Aabakke, Anna J M

AU - Secher, Niels J

PY - 2014/4

Y1 - 2014/4

N2 - While transverse incision is the recommended entry technique for cesarean delivery in high-income countries, it is our experience that midline incision is still used routinely in many low-income settings. Accordingly, international guidelines lack uniformity on this matter. Although evidence is limited, the literature suggests important advantages of the transverse incision, with lower risk of long-term disabilities such as wound disruption and hernia. Also, potential extra time spent on this incision appears not to impact neonatal outcome. Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a change in guidelines for low-income settings in which resources are limited for treating complications that may be life threatening.

AB - While transverse incision is the recommended entry technique for cesarean delivery in high-income countries, it is our experience that midline incision is still used routinely in many low-income settings. Accordingly, international guidelines lack uniformity on this matter. Although evidence is limited, the literature suggests important advantages of the transverse incision, with lower risk of long-term disabilities such as wound disruption and hernia. Also, potential extra time spent on this incision appears not to impact neonatal outcome. Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a change in guidelines for low-income settings in which resources are limited for treating complications that may be life threatening.

KW - Cesarean Section

KW - Developing Countries

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Infant, Newborn

KW - International Cooperation

KW - Practice Guidelines as Topic

KW - Pregnancy

KW - Time Factors

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

DO - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24486123

SN - 0020-7292

VL - 125

SP - 1

EP - 2

JO - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

JF - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

IS - 1

ER -

Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this