Utility of the Bladder Flap at Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that omission of the bladder flap in primary and repeat cesarean deliveries shortens operating time without increasing intraoperative and postoperative complications. METHODS: We randomized 258 women undergoing primary and repeat cesarean deliveries at 32 weeks of gestation or more to creation (n=131) or omission (n=127) of the bladder flap. Emergency cesarean deliveries, planned vertical uterine incisions, and previous abdominal surgeries besides cesarean deliveries were excluded. The primary outcome measure was total operating time. Secondary outcomes were bladder injury, incision-to-delivery time, incision-to-fascial closure time, estimated blood loss, postoperative microhematuria, postoperative pain, hospital days, endometritis, and urinary tract infection. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: The median skin incision to delivery interval was shorter with omission of the bladder flap (9 [range 1–43] compared with 10 [range 2–70] minutes; P=.04), but there was no difference in total operating time (51 [range 18–124] minutes compared with 51 [range 16–178]; P=.10). No bladder injuries occurred in either group and there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin level, postoperative microhematuria, postoperative pain, hospital days, endometritis, or urinary tract infection. CONCLUSION: Omission of the bladder flap at primary and repeat cesarean deliveries does not increase intraoperative or postoperative complications. Incision-to-delivery time is shortened but total operating time appears unchanged. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov,www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00918996. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I

[1]  L. Shulman Effect of avoiding bladder flap formation in caesarean section on repeat caesarean delivery , 2012 .

[2]  A. Tinelli,et al.  Effect of avoiding bladder flap formation in caesarean section on repeat caesarean delivery. , 2011, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[3]  J. Martin,et al.  Births: preliminary data for 2009. , 2010, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[4]  C. Walsh Evidence-based cesarean technique , 2010, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[5]  J. Rahman,et al.  Bladder injuries during cesarean section in a University Hospital: a 25-year review , 2009, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  M. Walberg,et al.  Post‐cesarean surgical site infections according to CDC standards: rates and risk factors. A prospective cohort study , 2007, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[7]  S. Chauhan,et al.  Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  J. Martin,et al.  Births: preliminary data for 2007. , 2009 .

[9]  R. M. Wood,et al.  Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery. A prospective comparison. , 1999, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[10]  M. Hall,et al.  Urinary tract injuries during obstetric intervention , 1997, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  A Pollock,et al.  When to stop a clinical trial. , 1992, BMJ.

[12]  S. Pocock,et al.  When to stop a clinical trial. , 1992, BMJ.