Abstract
While transverse incision is the recommended entry technique for cesarean delivery in high-income countries, it is our experience that midline incision is still used routinely in many low-income settings. Accordingly, international guidelines lack uniformity on this matter. Although evidence is limited, the literature suggests important advantages of the transverse incision, with lower risk of long-term disabilities such as wound disruption and hernia. Also, potential extra time spent on this incision appears not to impact neonatal outcome. Therefore, we suggest that it is time for a change in guidelines for low-income settings in which resources are limited for treating complications that may be life threatening.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics |
| Vol/bind | 125 |
| Udgave nummer | 1 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 1-2 |
| Antal sider | 2 |
| ISSN | 0020-7292 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - apr. 2014 |
Fingeraftryk
Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.Citationsformater
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS