[Comparative evaluation of the Joel-Cohen cesarean section versus the transrectal incision].

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the Joel-Cohen method for cesarean section to the traditional transrectal incision. METHOD Fifty-two patients requiring a caesarean section were enrolled in this prospective study. Overall morbidity and post-operative pain was assessed. Four surgeons participated to this study, each included 13 patients. The main judgement criterion was post-operative pain on the first day. RESULTS Post-operative pain on the first day was less important (50 vs 23% p=0.04) in Joel-Cohen's. This method was shorter compared to the transrectal incision (33.6+6.4 min vs 51.2+8 min p<0.0001). There was no difference in overall morbidity between the two groups. CONCLUSION Joel-Cohen's method decrease post-operative pain and is a shorter procedure compared to the transrectal incision.

[1]  H. Saw,et al.  Finger‐assisted stretching technique for cesarean section , 2006, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[2]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Joel‐Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does it make a difference? , 2002 .

[3]  S. Gates,et al.  Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK , 2002 .

[4]  J. Daurès,et al.  Pfannenstiel Versus Maylard Incision for Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  S. Gates,et al.  Effects of surgical techniques of caesarean section on maternal health , 2001 .

[6]  J. Bódis,et al.  Comparative evaluation of the Misgav Ladach cesarean section with two traditional techniques. The first four years’ experience , 2001, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[7]  F. Golfier.  [Operative technique for cesarean section]. , 2000, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.

[8]  M. Stark,et al.  The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section, method description , 1999, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[9]  E. Darj,et al.  The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method , 1999, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[10]  O. Irion,et al.  Nonclosure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial , 1996, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  M. Stark,et al.  Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesarean section. , 1994, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[12]  R. Knuppel,et al.  Peritoneal Closure or Non-Closure at Cesarean , 1991, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  J. Mouchel.  [Suprapubic transrectal incision for carrying out obstetrical and gynecological surgery. Analysis of 1,545 published cases]. , 1986, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.

[14]  J. Mouchel.  [Transverse trans-rectus abdominis incision in gynaecological and obstetrical surgery. 673 cases (author's transl)]. , 1981, La Nouvelle presse medicale.

[15]  Sidney Cohen.  Abdominal and Vaginal Hysterectomy—New Techniques based on Time and Motion Studies , 1973 .