Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery



      This study was undertaken to evaluate the risks and benefits of single-layer uterine closure at cesarean delivery on the index and subsequent pregnancy.

      Study design

      A retrospective study of women delivered of their first live-born infants by primary low transverse cesarean delivery (1989-2001) and their subsequent pregnancy at our institution was performed.


      Of 768 women studied, 267 had single-layer and 501 had double-layer uterine closures in the index pregnancy. Single-layer closure was associated with slightly decreased blood loss (646 vs 690 mL, P<.01), operative time (46 vs 52 minutes, P<.001), endometritis (13.5% vs 25.5%, P<.001), and postoperative stay (3.5 vs 4.1 days, P<.001). In the second pregnancy, prior single-layer closure was not associated with uterine rupture after a trial of labor (0% vs 1.2%, P = .30), or other maternal or infant morbidities. Prior single-layer closure was associated with increased uterine windows (3.5% vs 0.7%, P = .046) at subsequent cesarean delivery.


      Single-layer uterine closure is associated with decreased infectious morbidity in the index surgery, but not uterine rupture or other adverse outcomes in the subsequent gestation.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kerr J.M.M
        The technique of cesarean section, with special reference to the lower uterine segment.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1926; 12: 729-734
        • Pritchard J.A
        • MacDonald P.C
        Cesarean section and cesarean hysterectomy.
        in: Pritchard J.A MacDonald P.C Williams' obstetrics. 15th ed. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York1976: 903-923
        • Lal K
        • Tsomo P
        Comparative study of single layer and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section.
        Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1988; 27: 349-352
        • Hauth J.C
        • Owen J
        • Davis R
        Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 167: 1108-1111
        • Jelsema R.D
        • Wittingen J.A
        • Vander Kolk K.J
        Continuous, nonlocking single-layer repair of the low transverse uterine incision.
        J Reprod Med. 1993; 38: 393-396
        • Malkamy H
        • Ardekany M.S
        Is it safe to repair low transverse cesarean section in one layer?.
        Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993; 41: 93-95
        • Ohel G
        • Younis S
        • Lang N
        • Levit A
        Double-layer closure of uterine incision with visceral and parietal peritoneal closure: are they obligatory steps of routine cesarean sections?.
        J Matern Fetal Med. 1996; 5: 366-369
        • Chapman S.J
        • Owen J
        • Hauth J.C
        One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 16-18
        • Tucker J.M
        • Hauth J.C
        • Hodgkins P
        • Owen J
        • Winkler C.L
        Trial of labor after a one- or two-layer closure of a low transverse uterine incision.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 545-546
        • Bujold E
        • Bujold C
        • Hamilton E.F
        • Harel F
        • Gauthier R.J
        The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 1326-1330
        • Cruikshank D.P
        The impact of single- or double-layer closure on uterine rupture.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 295-296