Niche formation, or defects in the uterine scar, can lead to gynecologic complaints and complications in future pregnancies. The debate over single-layer vs. double-layer uterine closure techniques persists, with conflicting evidence on which approach is superior for preventing long-term complications.
This study was published in the Journal Of Obstretrics & Gynaecology by Carry Verberkt and colleagues. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted in the Netherlands aimed to assess the impact of single-layer vs. double-layer closure of the uterine incision on long-term outcomes in women undergoing their first cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was live birth rate at a 3-year follow-up, with secondary outcomes including fertility, gynecologic, and obstetrical outcomes.
Key Findings:
• The study included 2292 women, with 830 in the single-layer closure group and 818 in the double-layer closure group.
• At the 3-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in live birth rates between the two closure techniques.
• Secondary outcomes, including pregnancy rate, need for fertility treatments, mode of delivery, and obstetrical complications, also showed no significant differences between the groups.
• Both groups reported high rates of gynecologic symptoms, including spotting, dysmenorrhea, and sexual dysfunction.
The study did not find superiority of double-layer closure over single-layer closure in terms of reproductive outcomes after a first cesarean delivery. This challenges the current recommendation favoring double-layer closure, suggesting that surgeons can choose their preferred technique. Additionally, the high prevalence of gynecologic symptoms after cesarean delivery highlights the importance of discussing these risks with patients.
Surgeons should consider individual patient factors and preferences when choosing uterine closure techniques during cesarean deliveries. Patient counseling regarding the potential for gynecologic symptoms post-delivery is crucial for informed decision-making. Further research may be needed to elucidate the long-term effects of different closure methods on maternal health and reproductive outcomes.
Reference:
Verberkt, C., Stegwee, S. I., Van der Voet, L. F., Van Baal, W. M., Kapiteijn, K., Geomini, P. M. A. J., Van Eekelen, R., de Groot, C. J. M., de Leeuw, R. A., Huirne, J. A. F., van Baal, M., Klerkx, W., Bekker, M. N., de Boer, K., Boormans, E. M. A., van Eijndhoven, H. W. F., Feitsma, H., Hehenkamp, W. J. K., Hemelaar, M., … de Vleeschouwer, M. Single-layer vs double-layer uterine closure during cesarean delivery: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2Close study). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.12.032
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.