Sir, we read with interest the correspondence on MisgavLadach cesarean section (1). We did not find the adhesion related problems in repeat procedures, as reported by Dr. Darj. At our department with some 800 cesarean deliveries every year, we modified our Pfannenstiel cesarean section during the past few years (2). Now, the wound closure is similar to the MisgavLadach technique (3), without peritoneal closure. In 1997 and 1998 we used both, the traditional technique with peritoneal closure and the modified technique without. Out of all women who had their first cesarean section during those 2 years, we identified 61 women who had a repeat cesarean at our institution until June 2000. Analysis of the records revealed that women without peritoneal closure at the first cesarean (nΩ30) had a shorter incision-delivery time (6.7 vs. 9.1 min) and a shorter total operating time (39 vs. 44 min) at repeat cesarean, when compared with traditional wound closure at the first operation. In each group one patient with significant intraabdominal adhesions was reported. Our data indicate that non-closure
[1]
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.
[2]
S. Hamido,et al.
Minimal wound closure at cesarean section.
,
2001
.
[3]
M. Stark,et al.
The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section, method description
,
1999,
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.
[4]
P. Husslein,et al.
Vereinfachter Wundverschlu bei Sectio caesarea
,
1998
.
[5]
T. Tulandi,et al.
Closure of laparotomy incisions with or without peritoneal suturing and second-look laparoscopy.
,
1988,
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.