Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries. / Maaløe, Nanna; Aabakke, Anna J M; Secher, Niels J.

In: International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol. 125, No. 1, 04.2014, p. 1-2.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Maaløe, N, Aabakke, AJM & Secher, NJ 2014, 'Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries', International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

APA

Maaløe, N., Aabakke, A. J. M., & Secher, N. J. (2014). Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 125(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

Vancouver

Maaløe N, Aabakke AJM, Secher NJ. Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2014 Apr;125(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

Author

Maaløe, Nanna ; Aabakke, Anna J M ; Secher, Niels J. / Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries. In: International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2014 ; Vol. 125, No. 1. pp. 1-2.

Bibtex

@article{49533c7f7338472daf3bf16eea664bc3,
title = "Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries",
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.",
keywords = "Cesarean Section, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, International Cooperation, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Pregnancy, Time Factors",
author = "Nanna Maal{\o}e and Aabakke, {Anna J M} and Secher, {Niels J}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.",
year = "2014",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "1--2",
journal = "International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics",
issn = "0020-7292",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Midline versus transverse incision for cesarean delivery in low-income countries

AU - Maaløe, Nanna

AU - Aabakke, Anna J M

AU - Secher, Niels J

N1 - Copyright © 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2014/4

Y1 - 2014/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cesarean Section

KW - Developing Countries

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Infant, Newborn

KW - International Cooperation

KW - Practice Guidelines as Topic

KW - Pregnancy

KW - Time Factors

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

DO - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.030

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24486123

VL - 125

SP - 1

EP - 2

JO - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

JF - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

SN - 0020-7292

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 130530092