Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Journal of Obstrectic Anaesthesia and Critical Care
Search articles
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Users Online: 139

 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 79-81

Hysterotomy repair during cesarean delivery – In or out, does it really matter?


Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

Date of Submission21-Jul-2022
Date of Acceptance24-Jul-2022
Date of Web Publication02-Sep-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Adithya Bhat
660 S. Euclid Ave. Box 8054, St. Louis, MO, 63110
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JOACC.JOACC_46_22

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Bhat A, Singh PM. Hysterotomy repair during cesarean delivery – In or out, does it really matter?. J Obstet Anaesth Crit Care 2022;12:79-81

How to cite this URL:
Bhat A, Singh PM. Hysterotomy repair during cesarean delivery – In or out, does it really matter?. J Obstet Anaesth Crit Care [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 7];12:79-81. Available from: https://www.joacc.com/text.asp?2022/12/2/79/355349



Cesarean delivery is the most common surgery performed in the world. By 2030, more than 38 million deliveries will be performed annually via cesarean, with a global rate that is projected to increase from 21% to 28.5% of all deliveries.[1] Although the incidence of cesarean delivery is less in India, rates have still doubled from 8.5% to 17.2% between 2005 and 2015.[2] As a major abdominal operation, cesarean delivery is associated with increased morbidity compared with vaginal delivery.[3] Variation with regard to surgical techniques for hysterotomy closure has persisted for decades, with both intra-peritoneal and externalized approaches commonly practiced. Advocates of externalization believe that this maneuver results in less bleeding, whereas those who support intra-peritoneal repair suggest that it results in less patient discomfort and surrounding tissue injury. Despite a large number of randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques for major peri-operative outcomes, clinical equipoise remains, with differences in practice largely due to cultural, institutional, and individual provider preferences. Identifying the superior technique has been an enduring research topic with major public health ramifications.

In this meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis published in the International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia,[4] we found equivalence between methods for estimated blood loss and surgical duration and a statistically significant reduction in post-operative analgesic requirement and time to return of bowel function with intra-peritoneal repair. These findings contradict the longstanding belief that intra-peritoneal repair invites additional surgical risk previously found by randomized controlled trials.[5],[6],[7],[8]

As practicing anesthesiologists, we have all witnessed firsthand the profound impact that externalization of the uterus can have on the patient experience. As if on cue, women who were previously overwhelmed with joy at the birth of their child suddenly experience intense nausea, angina, and anxiety. We look over the drapes to see the uterus fully externalized and flipped onto the patient's belly. In no other procedure is an abdominal organ so intentionally and routinely extracted from the viscera in an awake patient. We again anticipate the same maternal discomfort once the uterus is re-internalized, and many of us reach for prophylactic anti-emetic or analgesic medication to mitigate the second wave of unpleasantness the mother will inevitably experience. We have seen maternal discomfort during externalization prevent proper skin-to-skin bonding of the mother and infant, frighten or even incapacitate the mother's support person, and disrupt the surgical field because of abdominal movement during retching. Often times, treatment of this perceived pain with additional local anesthetic through an in situ epidural catheter is ineffective and hypotension-inducing. We routinely administer intravenous opioids to treat the visceral pain of externalization, which inevitably results in maternal drowsiness. In rare circumstances, we must administer benzodiazepines to reduce maternal anxiety and in the process deny the mother clear re-collection of her birthing experience.

The influence of severe post-surgical pain on the development of chronic pain syndromes is well documented.[9],[10] Up to 11% of women develop chronic post-surgical pain after cesarean delivery 1 year later, with up to 10% of these patients experiencing severe pain.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] Given the anticipated increase in cesarean volume globally, the reduction of severe pain after cesarean represents an important public health objective. The development of chronic pain syndromes is especially relevant today as opioid use disorder in the United States has reached epidemic levels[17] with over 80% of women filling opioid prescriptions after cesarean delivery[18] and up to 1 in 300 women becoming dependent on opioids after cesarean delivery.[19] The downstream consequences of untreated post-cesarean pain include delayed functional recovery, un-anticipated re-admissions, reduced rates of breastfeeding, and the development of mental illness including post-partum depression.[20],[21],[22] We believe that the biologically plausible and statistically significant reduction in post-operative analgesic requirement associated with intra-peritoneal repair merits additional consideration in light of the high burden of opioid-related illness around the world.

Both post-operative analgesia requirement and return of bowel function are cornerstone to the concept of enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery (ERAC). ERAC constitutes an evidence-based and multi-disciplinary approach to standardize the peri-operative care of women undergoing cesarean delivery to expedite functional recovery, facilitate earlier maternal-infant bonding, and decrease post-surgical morbidity.[23] Functional recovery leads to a shortened length of stay, faster return to activities of daily living, and improved patient satisfaction. Where implemented, ERAC has resulted in lowered opioid usage without significant change in pain scores, complication rates, or re-admission, including 40% lower morphine equivalent usage within 24 hours of discharge.[24] Moreover, the influence of post-surgical opioid use on delayed return of the bowel function is well described.[25] Accordingly, it may be prudent to consider intra-peritoneal hysterotomy repair as part of a comprehensive ERAC strategy.

An interesting modifier of surgical outcome that is challenging to standardize and mitigate in randomized trials is the skill of the obstetrician performing the cesarean. For obvious reasons, a trainee with only three years of surgical experience is more likely to commit surgical errors than a surgeon with 20 years of experience. Trainees are sometimes included in research protocols; problematically, surgeons with less experience are more likely to introduce variations in their practice that might influence peri-operative outcomes. For example, incision length, retraction technique, visualization during surgical bleeding, and iatrogenic injury to adjacent pelvic structures are all highly influenced by surgical skill and are often difficult to control for despite their potential influence on major peri-operative outcomes. Future studies should restrict participation to small groups of highly experienced surgeons to better mitigate the influence of this confounder.

Randomized controlled trials are expensive, time-consuming, and laborious. In a global research environment that is over-saturated with research proposals and constrained by limited funding, it is essential that future studies comparing these two methods focus on peri-operative outcomes for which additional data are likely to influence practice changes. Study protocols will need to ensure strict management of environmental conditions and minimize deviations in surgical and anesthetic practice, including standardizing post-operative analgesic regimens. Consolidating the current body of evidence, we believe that intra-peritoneal hysterotomy repair, when performed by a surgeon comfortable in this technique, offers patient-centric benefits which may have important downstream consequences. In an era where ERAC protocols are becoming increasingly prevalent, the benefits of intra-peritoneal repair are especially noteworthy.

Conflict will always exist when it comes to deciding between methods – ardent supporters of either technique will invariably defend their practice and their institutional heritage.

Surgeons who routinely perform externalized repair should make a concerted effort to identify barriers to performing internalized repair, and if externalized repair is absolutely required, the surgical consent should include the risks that accompany this maneuver. Ultimately, obstetricians and anesthesiologists have a shared responsibility to minimize peri-operative complications, resource utilization, and patient dissatisfaction. Obstetric anesthesiologists, in particular, often deal with unpredictable circumstances, on labor and delivery wards. Dynamic changes in our clinical bandwidth are especially pronounced overnight, when many labor and delivery wards operate with reduced anesthesia staffing, often largely comprised of trainees. It is vitally important that we collaboratively address modifiable risks to patient morbidity, and working with our surgical colleagues to acknowledge hysterotomy repair as one such modifiable risk is an important step in the right direction. With time, we hope that a gradual shift toward first performing intra-peritoneal repair, with externalized repair performed only as a backup in extenuating circumstances, will become the status quo for hysterotomy repair during cesarean delivery.



 
  References Top

1.
Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: Global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6:e005671. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bhatia M, Banerjee K, Dixit P, Dwivedi LK. Assessment of variation in cesarean delivery rates between public and private health facilities in India From 2005 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2015022.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:179-93.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bhat A, Jaffer D, Keasler P, Kamath K, Kelly J, Singh PM. Uterine externalization versus in situ repair of hysterotomy during cesarean delivery: A systematic review, equivalence meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. Int J Obstet Anesth 2022;50:103271. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa. 2022.103271.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Mohr-Sasson A, Castel E, Lurie I, Heifetz S, Kees S, Sivan E. Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair in primary and repeat cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022;35:433-438.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Orji EO, Olaleye AO, Loto OM, Ogunniyi SO. A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:570-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ezechi OC, Kalu BK, Njokanma FO, Nwokoro CA, Okeke GC. Uterine incision closure at caesarean section: A randomised comparative study of intraperitoneal closure and closure after temporary exteriorisation. West Afr J Med 2005;24:41-3.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Wahab MA, Karantzis P, Eccersley PS, Russell IF, Thompson JW, Lindow SW. A randomised, controlled study of uterine exteriorisation and repair at caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:913-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Richebe P, Capdevila X, Rivat C. Persistent postsurgical pain: Pathophysiology and preventative pharmacologic considerations. Anesthesiology 2018;129:590-607.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Fletcher D, Stamer UM, Pogatzki-Zahn E, Zaslansky R, Tanase NV, Perruchoud C, et al. Chronic postsurgical pain in Europe: An observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015;32:725-34.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Lavand'homme P. Postpartum chronic pain. Minerva Anestesiol 2019;85:320-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Weibel S, Neubert K, Jelting Y, Meissner W, Wockel A, Roewer N, et al. Incidence and severity of chronic pain after caesarean section: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2016;33:853-65.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Jin J, Peng L, Chen Q, Zhang D, Ren L, Qin P, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for chronic pain following cesarean section: A prospective study. BMC Anesthesiol 2016;16:99. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0270-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Eisenach JC, Pan P, Smiley RM, Lavand'homme P, Landau R, Houle TT. Resolution of pain after childbirth. Anesthesiology 2013;118:143-51.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Niklasson B, Georgsson Ohman S, Segerdahl M, Blanck A. Risk factors for persistent pain and its influence on maternal wellbeing after cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:622-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Sun KW, Pan PH. Persistent pain after cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth 2019;40:78-90.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Krans EE, Patrick SW. Opioid use disorder in pregnancy: Health policy and practice in the midst of an epidemic. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:4-10.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Osmundson SS, Min JY, Grijalva CG. Opioid prescribing after childbirth: Overprescribing and chronic use. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2019;31:83-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Bateman BT, Franklin JM, Bykov K, Avorn J, Shrank WH, Brennan TA, et al. Persistent opioid use following cesarean delivery: Patterns and predictors among opioid-naive women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:353 e1-18.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Babazade R, Vadhera RB, Krishnamurthy P, Varma A, Doulatram G, Saade GR, et al. Acute postcesarean pain is associated with in-hospital exclusive breastfeeding, length of stay and post-partum depression. J Clin Anesth 2020;62:109697. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane. 2019.109697.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Sutton CD, Carvalho B. Optimal pain management after cesarean delivery. Anesthesiol Clin 2017;35:107-24.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Baratta JL, Schwenk ES, Viscusi ER. Clinical consequences of inadequate pain relief: Barriers to optimal pain management. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134:15S-21S.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Patel K, Zakowski M. Enhanced recovery after cesarean: Current and emerging trends. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 2021;11:136-44.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Lester SA, Kim B, Tubinis MD, Morgan CJ, Powell MF. Impact of an enhanced recovery program for cesarean delivery on postoperative opioid use. Int J Obstet Anesth 2020;43:47-55.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kurz A, Sessler DI. Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction: Pathophysiology and potential new therapies. Drugs 2003;63:649-71.  Back to cited text no. 25
    




 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1311    
    Printed70    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded135    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal