Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05100147 |
Other study ID # |
473 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
November 1, 2021 |
Est. completion date |
May 31, 2022 |
Study information
Verified date |
October 2023 |
Source |
Mersin University |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Cesarean operations are one of the most common obsetric operations and have an increasing
trend in all over the world. However unfortunately the operation techniques have not been
standardized yet. It is well known that different uterine closure techniques result in
differences with respect to wound healing on the uterus; however, the ideal uterine closure
technique is yet not known. The aim of this study is to assess the results of different
uterine closure techniques during cesarean section with respect to the development of
cesarean scar defects.
Description:
Patients were randomized into three groups using a computer-based program (ratio 1:1:1), and
the assigned surgical technique was disclosed just before surgery. At the time of surgery,
the sealed opaque envelope, numbered consecutively and containing the description of the
suturation technique, was given to the operator. Suturing techniques varied between groups:
double layer continuous, non-locking suturing with endometrial inclusion, second layer
imbricating the first layer (Group 1), double layer, continuous, non-locking suturing without
endometrial inclusion second layer imbricating the first layer (Group 2) and double layer
continuous with the first layer unlocked, including the endometrium and the deep part of the
myometrium, and the second layer continuous unlocked including the remaining part of the
myometrium (Group 3) (Figure 2). Size 1 polyglycolic acid 910 (Vicryl ® Ethicon Inc.
Somerville, NJ) was used as suture material in all groups.
Patients were re-evaluated at the sixth month as uterine scar healing is reported to be
completed within six months and preoperative assessments were repeated. Transvaginal
ultrasonography was performed by an investigator blinded to suturing techniques. Measurements
included RMT, and CSD assessment (as the primary outcomes) (including the depth and width of
the CSD), as well as other routine ultrasonographic evaluations. Transvaginal sonography was
performed by the same investigator with a Toshiba Applio 500 device using a PMW-621VT 6 Mhz
R13 probe. CSD was considered when myometrial continuity in the previous caesarean incision
site was lost, and an anechoic defective area towards the myometrium was noted. In patients
who did not develop CSD, the incision line was measured anteriorly, and the symmetrical
posterior uterine wall thickness was measured. In patients with CSD, the myometrium tissue
above the anechoic defective area was evaluated as residual myometrial thickness. The CSD
sac's depth and its base's width were measured. The full-thickness myometrium adjacent to the
defect area was measured, and recovery rates were calculated by taking the percentage of the
residual myometrial thickness over the defect to the full-thickness myometrium.