Comparative Study Of Merits And Demerits Of Exteriorisation Of Uterus During Cesarean Section
Authors: M K Dr. Girija , Gowridev Dr T G 
Published: October 2024

Background: The exteriorization of the uterus during a caesarean section involves carefully bringing the uterus out of the abdominal cavity and placing it on the woman's abdomen, affording surgeons better visualization and access during the procedure. Advocates of this technique argue for its routine adoption, emphasizing potential benefits such as enhanced surgical precision and reduced risk of complications. Conversely, critics raise concerns regarding associated risks, including increased likelihood of infection and prolonged surgical time. In the complex landscape of obstetric care, the decision to exteriorize the uterus during a caesarean section is multifaceted, influenced by a myriad of factors including patient characteristics, surgical expertise, and institutional protocols. This discussion seeks to comprehensively explore the merits and demerits of uterine exteriorization, examining the current evidence base and clinical practices to inform decision-making and optimize maternal and neonatal outcomes. Through a nuanced evaluation of the benefits and risks, obstetricians can navigate the complexities of uterine management during caesarean sections, ultimately striving to provide safe and effective care for both mother and baby. Materials and Methods: The present prospective observational study was conducted on 100 patients in the Department of obstetrics and gynecology, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital carried out from October 2022 to September 2023. Prior to the initiation of the study, Ethical and Research Committee clearance was obtained from Institutional Ethical Committee. Results: The study conducted a comparative analysis of various demographic, clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative variables between two groups undergoing cesarean section. Results showed no statistically significant differences in age (p = 0.1484), BMI (p = 0.152), area of residence (p = 0.183), marital life (p = 0.651), gestational age (p = 0.595), parity (p = 0.4312), indications for cesarean section (p = 0.1134), or type of cesarean section (p = 0.3915) between the groups. However, a significant difference was found in mean uterine incision closure time (p = 0.03), with Group I having a shorter time. Group I also exhibited a lower mean drop in hemoglobin (p = 0.251) but reported more moderate postoperative pain (p = 0.05) and required additional postoperative analgesia (p = 0.05) compared to Group II. No statistically significant differences were observed in the time for return of bowel sounds (p = 0.531), hospital stay (p = 0.198), surgical site infections (p = 0.554), endomyometritis (p = 0.732), or fever (p = 0.819) between the groups. These findings suggest potential areas for optimizing postoperative pain management in cesarean section patients. Conclusion: The comparative analysis between Group I and Group II revealed no significant disparities in demographic factors, indications, or types of cesarean section. However, Group I exhibited a shorter mean uterine incision closure time and a lower mean drop in hemoglobin compared to Group II. Conversely, Group I experienced a higher incidence of moderate postoperative pain and required more additional postoperative analgesia. Other postoperative variables, including time for return of bowel sounds, hospital stay, and the occurrence of surgical site infections, endomyometritis, and fever, showed no significant differences between the groups. Further exploration is necessary to understand the clinical implications of these findings and to optimize postoperative management strategies.