Advertisement

Do adhesions at repeat cesarean delay delivery of the newborn?

      Objective

      We sought to assess whether the presence and severity of adhesions at first repeat cesarean delivery are associated with delayed delivery of the newborn.

      Study Design

      We conducted secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of women undergoing first repeat cesarean. Severity and location of adhesions were reported by surgeons immediately postoperatively. We compared adhesion density scores with delivery data.

      Results

      Of 145 women analyzed, 92 (63.5%) had adhesions and 53 (36.5%) did not. Mean incision to delivery time in women with adhesion scores >3 was 19.8 minutes, compared to 15.6 minutes with scores ≤3 (P = .04). More women with adhesion scores >3 remained undelivered at 30 minutes after incision compared to scores ≤3 (17.9% vs 5.1%; odds ratio, 7.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–34.5), after controlling for potential confounders.

      Conclusion

      Among women undergoing first repeat cesarean, severity of adhesions may delay delivery of the newborn. Study of techniques to reduce adhesions may be warranted to prevent delayed delivery at repeat cesarean.

      Key words

      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:

      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

      References

        • Hamilton B.E.
        • Martin J.A.
        • Ventura S.J.
        Births: preliminary data for 2009.
        (National vital statistics reports web release. Vol. 59, No. 3) National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD2010
        • Martin J.A.
        • Hamilton B.E.
        • Sutton P.D.
        • et al.
        Births: final data for 2006.
        (Vol. 57, No. 7)Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009
        • National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Panel
        National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement; vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights, March 8-10, 2010.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 1279-1295
        • Lydon-Rochelle M.T.
        • Cahill A.G.
        • Spong C.Y.
        Birth after previous cesarean delivery: short-term maternal outcomes.
        Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34: 249-257
        • Silver R.M.
        Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term maternal outcomes.
        Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34: 258-266
        • Patel R.M.
        • Jain L.
        Delivery after previous cesarean: short-term perinatal outcomes.
        Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34: 272-280
        • O'Shea T.M.
        • Klebanoff M.A.
        • Signore C.
        Delivery after previous cesarean: long-term outcomes in the child.
        Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34: 281-292
        • 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
        • Berghella V.
        • Baxter J.K.
        • Chauhan S.P.
        Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 1607-1617
        • Miller D.A.
        • Chollet J.A.
        • Goodwin T.M.
        Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 177: 210
        • Wu S.
        • Kocherginsky M.
        • Hibbard J.U.
        Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 1458
        • Clark S.L.
        • Koonings P.P.
        • Phelan J.P.
        Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 66: 89
        • Morales K.J.
        • Gordon M.C.
        • Bates Jr, G.W.
        Postcesarean delivery adhesions associated with delayed delivery of infant.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 196: 461.e1-461.e6
        • Tulandi T.
        • Agdi M.
        • Zarei A.
        • et al.
        Adhesion development and morbidity after repeat cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 56.e1-56.e6
        • Lyell D.J.
        • Caughey A.B.
        • Hu E.
        • Daniels K.
        Peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 275-280
        • Bloom S.L.
        • Leveno K.J.
        • Spong C.Y.
        • et al.
        Decision-to-incision times and maternal and infant outcomes.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 6-11
        • Bader A.M.
        • Datta S.
        • Arthur G.R.
        • Benvenuti E.
        • Courtney M.
        • Hauch M.
        Maternal and fetal catecholamines and uterine incision-to-delivery interval during elective cesarean.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75: 600-603
        • Bamigboye A.A.
        • Hofmeyr G.J.
        Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at cesarean section.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; 4 (CD000163)
        • Blumenfeld Y.
        • Caughey A.
        • El-Sayed Y.
        • Daniels K.
        • Lyell D.
        Single- versus double-layer hysterotomy closure at primary caesarean delivery and bladder adhesions.
        BJOG. 2010; 117: 690-694
        • Cheong Y.C.
        • Premkumar G.
        • Metwally M.
        • Peacock J.L.
        • Li T.C.
        To close or not to close?.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009; 147: 3-8
        • Shi Z.
        • Ma L.
        • Yang Y.
        • et al.
        Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section–a meta-analysis and systematic review.
        BJOG. 2011; 118: 410-422