Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single‐ <i>vs</i> double‐layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the surgical technique for uterine closure following Cesarean delivery influences the healing of the Cesarean scar, but there is still no consensus on the optimal technique. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effect of single- vs double-layer uterine closure on the risk of uterine scar defect. METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception of each database until May 2016. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of single- vs double-layer uterine closure following low transverse Cesarean section on the risk of uterine scar defect were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of uterine scar defects detected on ultrasound. Secondary outcomes were residual myometrial thickness evaluated by ultrasound and the incidence of uterine dehiscence and/or rupture in subsequent pregnancy. Summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% CIs. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (3969 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was low. Statistical heterogeneity within the studies was low, with no inconsistency in the primary and secondary outcomes. Women who received single-layer uterine closure had a similar incidence of uterine scar defects as did women who received double-layer closure (25% vs 43%; RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.36-1.64); five trials; 350 participants; low quality of evidence). Compared with double-layer uterine closure, women who received single-layer closure had a significantly thinner residual myometrium on ultrasound (MD, -2.19 mm (95% CI, -2.80 to -1.57 mm); four trials; 374 participants; low quality of evidence). No difference was found in the incidence of uterine dehiscence (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.34 (95% CI, 0.24-4.82); three trials; 3421 participants; low quality of evidence) or uterine rupture (0.1% vs 0.1%; RR, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.05-5.53); one trial; 3234 participants; low quality of evidence) in a subsequent pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Single- and double-layer closure of the uterine incision following Cesarean delivery are associated with a similar incidence of Cesarean scar defects, as well as uterine dehiscence and rupture in a subsequent pregnancy. However, the quality level of summary estimates, as assessed by GRADE, was low, indicating that the true effect may be, or is even likely to be, substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,041 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».