MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997073185 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.11.004

Compression sutures for uterine atony and hemorrhage following cesarean delivery

2005· review· en· W1997073185 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregg Nelson, Colin Birch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUterine atonyMedicineAtonyUterine InertiaCesarean deliveryUterine ruptureObstetricsGynecologyUterusHysterectomyPregnancySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postpartum hemorrhage is a common obstetric complication, and uterine atony was identified as its primary cause [1]. In 1997 B-Lynch and colleagues described a surgical technique for the control of postpartum hemorrhage, which served as an alternative to more complicated surgical procedures associated with increased patient morbidity (e.g., internal iliac artery ligation and hysterectomy) [2], [3]. Recently, Hayman et al. [4] described modifications to this technique, which include (1) placing the primary vertical compression sutures separately, and (2) placing additional sutures to control hemorrhage and prevent the primary vertical compression sutures from sliding down the sides of the uterus. In the following case series, an original method to control hemorrhage and prevent lateral slippage of the sutures is described. A 40-year-old woman, gravida 1, para 0, was admitted in active labor to the Foothills Medical Centre of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in her 42nd week of pregnancy and cared for by the family physician on call. Eight hours later, the obstetrical service was consulted because labor was not progressing, and a cesarean section was performed. Following an uncomplicated delivery via a low transverse uterine incision and removal of the placenta, the uterus was found to be atonic and diffusely bleeding. There was minimal response to intermittent fundal massage and medical efforts to improve uterine tonicity proved unsuccessful. Although continuous bimanual compression, as recommended by B-Lynch et al. [2], appeared to control the bleeding, the patient having lost more than 1500 mL, the decision was made to place compression sutures. According to the B-Lynch technique, with the uterine incision still open, a No. 2 Vicryl suture (Ethicon Inc., Sommerville, NJ) threaded through a large needle was passed through the anterior uterine wall (A) approximately 2 cm below the uterine incision (Fig. 1). From its intrauterine position, the needle was then brought out through the anterior uterine wall, approximately 2 cm above the incision (B). At this point, the authors of the present report modified the B-Lynch technique. Rather than wrapping the suture over the fundus, from where it risks being dislodged during the return of the uterus to the abdomen or during uterine involution, the suture was passed through the fundus 3 to 4 cm medial to the cornual region of the fallopian tube and 2 to 3 cm below the superior aspect of the fundus (to pass through the fundus the needle needs to be large; a large size also decreases the possibility of a needle break and/or needle embedment in the myometrium) (C). Needle and suture are then brought back through the posterior aspect of the lower segment of the uterus and joined anteriorly, where the suture was initially passed through below the uterine incision (D). This process is repeated on the opposite side. Then, while an assistant applies bimanual compression to the uterus, the sutures are tied down in place. The uterine incision is then observed for any evidence of bleeding prior to closure. Table 1 summarizes an additional 4 cases in which this compression technique proved successful in controlling diffuse uterine bleeding. Passage of the suture through the uterus. The needle is passed through the anterior uterine wall (A). From its intrauterine position, it is then brought out through the anterior uterine wall (B), then passed through the fundus (C), and brought back through the posterior aspect of the lower segment and joined anteriorly (D). The process is repeated on the opposite side and the sutures are tied down in place while an assistant applies continuous bimanual compression to the uterus. The novelty of the technique resides with anchoring the primary sutures to the uterine fundus, which prevents the possibility of their slipping laterally during the return of the uterus to the abdomen or during uterine involution (although some may argue that this does not matter, as hemostasis is achieved by thrombosis of the vessels in just a few hours). While passing the suture through the uterine cavity may be of concern, in the authors' experience, any risk is minimal and outweighed by the benefit of preserving the patient's fertility. Furthermore, the suture material used is absorbable, and the amount in the uterus is small compared with that needed with other techniques. This technique has only been used for 18 months, and long-term fertility issues have not been addressed. This will be a topic for further study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207