A study of morbidity pattern in Misgav Ladach technique of caesearean section
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20161692Keywords:
Misgav Ladach technique, Traditional method technique, MorbidityAbstract
Background: There has been progressive increase in C-section (CS) rate globally since last 10 years. Issues related to maternal choice, Mode of delivery for non-cephalic presentation at term, vaginal delivery after previous scar have been the focus of attention. The objective of the study was to determine whether Misgav Ladach caesarean section technique offers benefits over Traditional Method of caesarean section with regards to Duration of surgery, Time taken for abdominal entry, Total operation time, Amount of blood loss and Postoperative morbidity.
Methods: A randomized control study was carried out on 460 patients who underwent Caesarean section at Krishna hospital, Karad, Maharashtra, India between November 2013 to June 2015.
Results: 460 cases of caesarean section admitted to Krishna institute of medical sciences, karad during the period of November 2013 to June 2015 were studied with respect of clinical pattern, majority of the cases who underwent, caesarean section by both the methods were in the age group of 21-25 years. The main indication for caesarean section was fetal distress. Fetal distress accounts for 29% in Misgav Ladach method and 31% in traditional method, failed induction accounts for 6% in Misgav Ladach and 8% in traditional method. The total operation time was 31 min average in Misgav Ladach and 37 min in traditional group. The mean blood loss for the Misgav Ladach group was 486 ml and 521 ml for the traditional group, which was significantly different (p<0.001). The postoperative morbidity due to fever was 4% in the both groups.
Conclusions: Substantial reductions in operating time and blood loss were noted in the study, which may benefit the women in reducing the exposure time to anesthesia.Metrics
References
Stark M, Finkel PR. Comparison between the Joel Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol. Reprod Biol. 1994;53:121-2.
Kerr JIVIM. The technique of caesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet. Gynecol. 1926;12:729-34.
Goldman G, Pinrault R, Bllodran H. Factors influence the practice of VBAC. AMJ of Public Health. 1993:1104-8.
Mahmud G, Tobassum A. Comparative analysis of MMC and convention caesarean section. Ann Pak Med Sci. 2013;9(3):153-8.
Sharma A, Singh M. Comparative between modified Misgav Ladach technique and pfannenstiel method of lower segment caesarean section, national journal of medical research. 2013;3(3):286-8.
Bhattacharyya N. Our experience of modified. Misgav Ladach caesarean section. FOGS. 1998;48(1):76-80.
Hershey DW, Quilligan EJ. Extra abdominal exteriorization at caesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1978;52(2):189-92.
Darj E, Nordstorm ML. The Misgav Ladach method for caesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78(1):37.
Hudić I, Bujold E, Fatušić Z, Skokić F, Latifagić A, Kapidžić M. The Misgav-Ladach method of cesarean section: a step forward in operative technique in obstetrics. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(5):1141-6.
Rajurkar K, Sood M. Maternal morbidity and mortality in caesarean section: a clinical analysis of 350 cases. J Obst Gynae India. 1987;42:823.