FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4367397311> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4367397311 endingPage "100992" @default.
• W4367397311 startingPage "100992" @default.
• W4367397311 abstract "BACKGROUND Uterine closure technique can affect scar healing, potentially resulting in unfavorable gynecologic and life-threatening obstetrical outcomes. Double-layer continuous unlocked suture has been demonstrated to promote optimal residual myometrial thickness. Recently, the purse-string uterine suture technique has emerged as a viable method to enhance the healing of scars. However, the current lack of randomized trials assessing the relevance of this technique warrants further investigation. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the impact of purse-string uterine sutures on scar healing after cesarean delivery when compared with double-layer continuous unlocked suture. STUDY DESIGN This was a randomized controlled trial; 126 patients with singleton pregnancies undergoing primary cesarean delivery were enrolled in 2 groups. The primary outcome was the mean residual myometrial thickness measured by saline infusion sonography 6 months after surgery by 2 sonographers blinded to uterine closure techniques. Operative time, calculated blood loss, total number of needed threads, and perioperative scar width were used for the perioperative analysis. Healing ratio and cesarean scar defect measurements were used for the 6-month analysis. RESULTS There was no significant difference in terms of residual myometrial thickness (9.38±2.3 vs 8.4±3.9 mm; P=.187), blood loss (540 [146–982] vs 495 [241–903] mL; P=.815), or operative time (6.2 [5.2–7] vs 6 [5.3–7] minutes; P=.977). Achievement of purse-string uterine suture required significantly fewer threads (1 [1–1] vs 2 [1–2]; P<.001) and fewer hemostatic complementary sutures (1 [1–1] vs 1 [1–2]; P=.013). Scar width was significantly lower with purse-string uterine sutures (50 [40.5–50.5] vs 70 [60–70.5] mm; P<.0001). Purse-string uterine sutures allowed a higher healing ratio (1 [0.9–1] vs 0.84 [0.59–1]; P=.003) and significantly fewer cesarean scar defects (12% vs 35%; P=.018) compared with double-layer continuous unlocked suture. CONCLUSION Despite resulting in no difference in residual myometrial thickness, purse-string uterine closure seems to be associated with better uterine scar healing on the basis of a higher healing ratio, and a lower rate of cesarean scar defects compared with double-layer continuous unlocked suture. Uterine closure technique can affect scar healing, potentially resulting in unfavorable gynecologic and life-threatening obstetrical outcomes. Double-layer continuous unlocked suture has been demonstrated to promote optimal residual myometrial thickness. Recently, the purse-string uterine suture technique has emerged as a viable method to enhance the healing of scars. However, the current lack of randomized trials assessing the relevance of this technique warrants further investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of purse-string uterine sutures on scar healing after cesarean delivery when compared with double-layer continuous unlocked suture. This was a randomized controlled trial; 126 patients with singleton pregnancies undergoing primary cesarean delivery were enrolled in 2 groups. The primary outcome was the mean residual myometrial thickness measured by saline infusion sonography 6 months after surgery by 2 sonographers blinded to uterine closure techniques. Operative time, calculated blood loss, total number of needed threads, and perioperative scar width were used for the perioperative analysis. Healing ratio and cesarean scar defect measurements were used for the 6-month analysis. There was no significant difference in terms of residual myometrial thickness (9.38±2.3 vs 8.4±3.9 mm; P=.187), blood loss (540 [146–982] vs 495 [241–903] mL; P=.815), or operative time (6.2 [5.2–7] vs 6 [5.3–7] minutes; P=.977). Achievement of purse-string uterine suture required significantly fewer threads (1 [1–1] vs 2 [1–2]; P<.001) and fewer hemostatic complementary sutures (1 [1–1] vs 1 [1–2]; P=.013). Scar width was significantly lower with purse-string uterine sutures (50 [40.5–50.5] vs 70 [60–70.5] mm; P<.0001). Purse-string uterine sutures allowed a higher healing ratio (1 [0.9–1] vs 0.84 [0.59–1]; P=.003) and significantly fewer cesarean scar defects (12% vs 35%; P=.018) compared with double-layer continuous unlocked suture. Despite resulting in no difference in residual myometrial thickness, purse-string uterine closure seems to be associated with better uterine scar healing on the basis of a higher healing ratio, and a lower rate of cesarean scar defects compared with double-layer continuous unlocked suture." @default.
• W4367397311 created "2023-04-30" @default.
• W4367397311 creator A5017146816 @default.
• W4367397311 creator A5030871562 @default.
• W4367397311 creator A5032828202 @default.
• W4367397311 creator A5079298396 @default.
• W4367397311 date "2023-07-01" @default.
• W4367397311 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4367397311 title "Impact of purse-string uterine suture on scar healing after a cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial" @default.
• W4367397311 cites W1713031275 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W1801318565 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W1889078410 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W1989126088 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2010360094 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2108981885 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2138106858 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2570998989 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2623600558 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2775336460 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2784667873 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2791927620 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2890928045 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W2936028992 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W3147802737 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W3176290533 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4200522515 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4214843556 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4226401489 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4280637135 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4303646441 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4307847580 @default.
• W4367397311 cites W4376522622 @default.
• W4367397311 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100992" @default.
• W4367397311 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37127211" @default.
• W4367397311 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4367397311 type Work @default.
• W4367397311 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4367397311 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4367397311 hasAuthorship W4367397311A5017146816 @default.
• W4367397311 hasAuthorship W4367397311A5030871562 @default.
• W4367397311 hasAuthorship W4367397311A5032828202 @default.
• W4367397311 hasAuthorship W4367397311A5079298396 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C2777327002 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C2777642821 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C2991743468 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C3020128735 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C31174226 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C141071460 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C168563851 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C2777327002 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C2777642821 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C2779234561 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C2991743468 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C3020128735 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C31174226 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C42219234 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C54355233 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C71924100 @default.
• W4367397311 hasConceptScore W4367397311C86803240 @default.
• W4367397311 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W4367397311 hasLocation W43673973111 @default.
• W4367397311 hasLocation W43673973112 @default.
• W4367397311 hasOpenAccess W4367397311 @default.
• W4367397311 hasPrimaryLocation W43673973111 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W1991405065 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2007157876 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2011177479 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2024745621 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2362483041 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2368340406 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2414718498 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W2800012567 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W3029515353 @default.
• W4367397311 hasRelatedWork W4301489211 @default.
• W4367397311 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W4367397311 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4367397311 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4367397311 workType "article" @default.