ONE- VERSUS TWO-LAYER CLOSURE AT CESAREAN BIRTH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-0-12702Keywords:
Cesarean section, uterine closure, one-layer technique, two-layer technique, surgical outcomes, postoperative complicationsAbstract
Background: Cesarean delivery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. The technique of uterine closure plays a significant role in postoperative recovery and future reproductive outcomes. However, the optimal method of uterine closure—whether one-layer or two-layer—remains a topic of ongoing debate, particularly in terms of uterine healing, surgical complications, and maternal outcomes. Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of one-layer versus two-layer uterine closure techniques following cesarean birth. Methods: This comparative observational study was conducted at Bilawal medical College at LUMHS Jamshoro, from October 2023 to September 2024. A total of 100 women who underwent cesarean sections were included in the study. The research participants formed two comparable groups through uterine closure methods. Group A received one-layer closure while Group B underwent a two-layer closure. Operative time along with estimated blood loss and postoperative pain and febrile morbidity and wound complications were among the collected and analyzed intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Results: The research showed the operative time for the one-layer closure group was dramatically shorter than the two-layer closure group (p < 0.05). The two treatment groups showed similar results in terms of estimated blood loss together with febrile morbidity and wound complications. The one-layer group had a slightly lower pain score after surgery but the observed difference lacked clinical importance. Conclusion: One-layer uterine closure required less operative time but did not raise the risk of short-term complications after surgery. Research indicates that the one-layer closure method stands as a secure alternative for performing cesarean section delivery which reduces procedure time when compared to standard two-layer techniques. Additional research must evaluate what effects one-layer uterine closure may have on uterine health for future pregnancies.
References
1. Tsuji S, Katsura D, Tokoro S, Inatomi A, Nobuta Y, Yoneoka Y, Amano T,
Murakami T. Two-layer interrupted versus two-layer continuous sutures for
preventing cesarean scar defect: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy
and Childbirth. 2025 Mar 7;25:248.
2. Mackeen AD, Sullivan MV, Berghella V. Evidence-based cesarean delivery:
intraoperative management following placental delivery until skin closure (part
9). American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM. 2025 Jan
1;7(1):101548.
3. Nabighadim M, Vaezi M, Maghalian M, Mirghafourvand M. Ultrasound
outcomes and surgical parameters of the double-layer purse-string uterine
closure technique in cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of randomized trials. BMC surgery. 2025 Dec;25(1):1-20.
4. Kendle A, Brown H. Cesarean Section. Major Complications of Female Pelvic
Surgery: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 2025 Mar 11:291-300.
5. Zahra Q. Frequency of Uterine Scar Dehiscence and Its Associated Risk Factors
in Patients with Previous Lower Segment Cesarean Section at Jinnah Post
Graduate Medical Center, Karachi. Indus Journal of Bioscience Research. 2025
Feb 28;3(2):688-92.
6. Kolkman I. Caesarean Section in Cows. InEncyclopedia of Livestock Medicine
for Large Animal and Poultry Production 2025 Jan 22 (pp. 1-13). Cham:
Springer Nature Switzerland.
7. Saravanan D, Prabhu K, Chandrasekaran S, Raj P, Murugesan A. Effect of
Early vs Delayed Oral Feeding Following Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized
Controlled Trial. Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology. 2025 Feb 3;16(S3):S158-62.
8. Takada K, Nishio E, Kotani K, Kobayashi A, Owaki A, Noda Y, Ito M,
Miyamura H, Nishizawa H. Laparoscopic repair combined with hysteroscopy
of cesarean section scar after cesarean scar pregnancy resulting in a live birth: A
case report. Fujita Medical Journal. 2025;11(1):48-51.
9. Pecorella G, Licchelli M, Panese G, Morciano A, Sparic R, Kosmas I, De Rosa
F, Malvasi A, Tinelli A. Laparoscopic repair of uterine rupture after delivery: A
comprehensive evaluation of the uterine rupture management, with a proposal
surgical method. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2025 Mar
14.
10. Cruz SM, Hameedi S, Sbragia L, Ogunleye O, Diefenbach K, Isaacs AM,
Etchegaray A, Olutoye OO. Fetoscopic Myelomeningocele (MMC) Repair:
Evolution of the Technique and a Call for Standardization. Journal of Clinical
Medicine. 2025 Feb 20;14(5):1402.
11. Costa E, Thrasivoulou C, Becker DL, Deprest J, David AL, Chowdhury TT.
Role of Myofibroblasts in the Repair of Iatrogenic Preterm Membranes
Subjected to Mechanical Stimulation. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2025 Jan;45(1):102-
12.
12. Tercan C, Dagdeviren E, Yeniocak AS, Can S, Aktoz F. Comparing the impact
of three‐dimensional display systems and barbed V‐LOC™ sutures in
laparoscopic hysterectomy: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology Research. 2025 Feb;51(2):e16251.
13. Matarasso A, BERNSTEIN JL, STEIN MJ. Abdominoplasty: State-of-the-Art.
InTULUA Abdominoplasty 2025 Jan 1 (pp. 479-486). Content Repository
Only!.
14. Hannoudi L, Saleeb N, Dafoulas G. The Solar Shading Performance of the
Multi-Angled Façade System and Its Impact on the Sustainable Improvement
of the Buildings. Energies. 2025 Mar 21;18(7):1565.
15. Adle-Biassette H, Golden JA. Malformations. InGreenfield's Neuropathology
10e Set 2025 (pp. 341-444). CRC Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jabeen Atta, Maryam Phulpoto, Roohi Nigar, Zubair Ahmed Yousfani, Muhammad Hanzala Yousfani, Noor ul Ain
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
