Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-26T10:06:46.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - The Evidence-Based Caesarean Delivery Technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2025

By
Inês Nunes
Edited by
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

Caesarean delivery is one of the most frequently performed operations. It is indicated in situations where the benefits associated with the procedure outweigh those of vaginal delivery. With appropriate indications, caesarean deliveries can be life-saving for both the mother and the fetus. The use of a correct surgical technique is essential to improve safety and reduce the risk of complications. As with most surgical procedures, different surgeons have different operating skills, technical difficulties may vary from case to case, and operating room conditions also differ in different parts of the world, so it is difficult to standardise the technique and to carry out research comparing different technical variations. Nevertheless, in this chapter, the published evidence is reviewed and summarised for the individual steps of caesarean delivery.

Keywords

caesarean deliveryevidence-basedsurgical techniqueshysterotomyincisionsafetycomplications

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Best Practice in Labour and Delivery , pp. 125 - 136
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Betran, AP, Ye, J, Moller, AB, Zhang, J, Gulmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates:1990–2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackeen, AD, Packard, RE, Ota, E, Berghella, V, Baxter, JK. Timing of intravenous prophylactic antibiotics for preventing postpartum infectious morbidity in women undergoing cesarean delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12:CD009516.Google Scholar
Bratzler, DW, Dellinger, EP, Olsen, KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70(5):195–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tita, AT, Szychowski, JM, Boggess, K, et al. Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1231–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 199: use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(3):e103–e19.Google Scholar
Tanner, J, Melen, K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;8:CD004122.Google ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Safe surgery: tools and resources. WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. 2009 [cited 2024 Jun]. http://bit.ly/4izsvk0Google Scholar
Hadiati, DR, Hakimi, M, Nurdiati, DS, Masuzawa, Y, da Silva Lopes, K, Ota, E. Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6:CD007462.Google ScholarPubMed
Tuuli, MG, Liu, J, Stout, MJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(7):647–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunkle, CM, Marchan, J, Safadi, S, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28:573–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darouiche, RO, Wall, MJ Jr, Itani, KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakhi, NA, Tricorico, G, Osipova, Y, Moretti, ML. Vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery: a randomized comparator-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2019;1(1):2–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palatnik, A, Grobman, WA. The association of skin-incision type at cesarean with maternal and neonatal morbidity for women with multiple prior cesarean deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:121–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean birth (NICE Guideline NG192). 2024 30 Jan [cited 2024 14 Mar]. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng192Google Scholar
Dahlke, JD, Mendez-Figueroa, H, Rouse, DJ, et al. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(4):294–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathai, M, Hofmeyr, GJ, Mathai, NE. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;5:CD004453.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, JG, Novikova, N, Mathai, M, Shah, A. Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(5):431–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gizzo, S, Andrisani, A, Noventa, M, et al. Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0114190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayres-de-Campos, D, Patrício, B. Modifications to the Misgav Ladach technique for cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(4):326–7.Google Scholar
Xavier, P, Ayres-De-Campos, D, Reynolds, A, Guimarães, M, Costa-Santos, C, Patrício, B. The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel-Kerr technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(9):878–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aird, LN, Brown, CJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical skin incisions. Am J Surg. 2012;204:216–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ly, J, Mittal, A, Windsor, J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cutting diathermy versus scalpel for skin incision. Br J Surg. 2012;99:613–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmad, NZ, Ahmed, A. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of surgical scalpel or diathermy in making abdominal skin incisions. Ann Surg. 2011;253:8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elbohoty, AE, Gomaa, MF, Abdelaleim, M, et al. Diathermy versus scalpel in transverse abdominal incision in women undergoing repeated cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(10):1541–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Wallin, G, Fall, O. Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:221–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berthet, J, Peresse, JF, Rosier, P, Racinet, C. Comparative study of Pfannenstiel’s incision and transverse abdominal incision in gynecologic and obstetric surgery. Presse Med. 1989;18:1431–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Kadir, RA, Khan, A, Wilcock, F, Chapman, L. Is inferior dissection of the rectus sheath necessary during Pfannenstiel incision for lower segment caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:262–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giacalone, PL, Daures, JP, Vignal, J, et al. Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:745–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, RM, Simon, H, Oz, AU. Pelosi-type vs. traditional cesarean delivery: a prospective comparison. J Reprod Med. 1999;44(9):788–95.Google ScholarPubMed
CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos, E, Addo, V, et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:234–48.Google Scholar
Waring, GJ, Shawer, S, Hinshaw, K. The use of O-ring retractors at caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:209–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasselgren, PO, Hagberg, E, Malmer, H, et al. One instead of two knives for surgical incision: does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119:917–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tappauf, C, Schest, E, Reif, P, et al. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal cesarean section: a prospective randomized comparison of surgical morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(4):338.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, HA, Egan, G, Walsh, CA, et al. Omission of the bladder flap at caesarean section reduces delivery time without increased morbidity: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;174:20–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, AL, Mulla, BM, Lamb, SV, et al. Urinary symptoms after bladder flap at the time of primary cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial (RTC). Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:223–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, LS, O’Connell, CM, Baskett, TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with classic and inverted T cesarean incisions. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(4):633–7.Google Scholar
Luthra, G, Gawade, P, Starikov, R, Markenson, G. Uterine incision-to-delivery interval and perinatal outcomes in transverse versus vertical incisions in preterm cesarean deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(18):1788–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Schutterman, EB, Grimes, DA. Comparative safety of the low transverse versus the low vertical uterine incision for cesarean delivery of breech infants. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61(5):593–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Shipp, TD, Zelop, CM, Repke, JT, et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(5):735–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Pergialiotis, V, Mitsopoulou, D, Biliou, E, et al. Cephalad-caudad versus transverse blunt expansion of the low transverse hysterotomy during cesarean delivery decreases maternal morbidity: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225:128.e1–e13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, JM, Anderson, ER, Gates, S, Grivell, RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:CD004732.Google Scholar
Saad, AF, Rahman, M, Costantine, MM, Saade, GR. Blunt versus sharp uterine incision expansion during low transverse cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):684.e1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, LC, Bruessel, T. Systematic review of oxytocin dosing at caesarean section. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012;40:247–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, SJ, Middleton, P, Dowswell, T, Morris, PS. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD004074.Google Scholar
Rabe, H, Gyte, GM, Díaz-Rossello, JL, Duley, L. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping and other strategies to influence placental transfusion at preterm birth on maternal and infant outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;9:CD003248.Google ScholarPubMed
Purisch, SE, Ananth, CV, Arditi, B, et al. Effect of delayed vs immediate umbilical cord clamping on maternal blood loss in term cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1869–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qian, Y, Ying, X, Wang, P, et al. Early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;300:531–43.Google ScholarPubMed
Anorlu, RI, Maholwana, B, Hofmeyr, GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD004737.Google Scholar
Narice, BF, Almeida, JR, Farrell, T, Madhuvrata, P. Impact of changing gloves during cesarean section on postoperative infective complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:1581–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eke, AC, Drnec, S, Buras, A, et al. Intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery at cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32:236–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liabsuetrakul, T, Peeyananjarassri, K. Mechanical dilatation of the cervix during elective caesarean section before the onset of labour for reducing postoperative morbidity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8:CD008019.Google ScholarPubMed
Tan, HS, Taylor, CR, Sharawi, N, et al. Uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair in cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2022;69(2):216–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qayum, K, Kar, I, Sofi, J, Panneerselvam, H. Single- versus double-layer uterine closure after cesarean section delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e18405.Google Scholar
Yasmin, S, Sadaf, J, Fatima, N. Impact of methods for uterine incision closure on repeat caesarean section scar of lower uterine segment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2011;21:522–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Stegwee, SI, Jordans, I, van der Voet, LF, et al. Uterine caesarean closure techniques affect ultrasound findings and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2018;125:1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceci, O, Cantatore, C, Scioscia, M, et al. Ultrasonographic and hysteroscopic outcomes of uterine scar healing after cesarean section: comparison of two types of single-layer suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38:1302–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberge, S, Chaillet, N, Boutin, A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115:5–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yazicioglu, F, Gökdogan, A, Kelekci, S, et al. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after caesarean section: is it preventable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;124:32–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antoine, C, Meyer, JA, Silverstein, JS, et al. The impact of uterine incision closure techniques on post-cesarean delivery niche formation and size: sonohysterographic examination of nonpregnant women. J Ultrasound Med. 2022;41(7):1763–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antoine, C, Pimentel, RN, Reece, EA, Oh, C. Endometrium-free uterine closure technique and abnormal placental implantation in subsequent pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34:2513–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khanuja, K, Burd, J, Ozcan, P, et al. Suture type for hysterotomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onesti, MG, Carella, S, Scuderi, N. Effectiveness of antimicrobial-coated sutures for the prevention of surgical site infection: a review of the literature. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018;22:5729–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Lyell, DJ, Naqvi, M, Wong, A, Urban, R, Carvalho, B. Rectus muscle reapproximation at cesarean delivery and postoperative pain: a randomized controlled trial. Surg J (N Y). 2017;3:e128–e33.Google ScholarPubMed
Omran, EF, Meshaal, H, Hassan, SM, Dieb, AS, Nabil, H, Saad, H. The effect of rectus muscle re-approximation at cesarean delivery on pain perceived after operation: a randomized control trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(19):3238–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Çintesun, E, İncesu Çintesun, FN, Aydoğdu, M, Bayramoğlu, D, Çelik, Ç. Effect of re-approximation of the rectus muscles on diastasis recti abdominis at cesarean section: a prospective cross-sectional study. Ginekol Pol. 2021;92(2):132–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demir Çaltekin, M, Doğan, H, Onat, T, Aydoğan Kırmızı, D, Başer, E, Yalvaç, ES. The effect of rectus reapproximation on postoperative muscle strength and core endurance in cesarean section: a prospective case-control study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48(3):709–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, MK, Voss, S, Jensen, K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;251:843–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceydeli, A, Rucinski, J, Wise, L. Finding the best abdominal closure: an evidence-based review of the literature. Curr Surg. 2005;62:220–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deerenberg, EB, Harlaar, JJ, Steyerberg, EW, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1254–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahbari, NN, Knebel, P, Diener, MK, et al. Current practice of abdominal wall closure in elective surgery: is there any consensus? BMC Surg. 2009;9:8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD004663.Google Scholar
Chelmow, D, Rodriguez, EJ, Sabatini, MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:974–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackeen, AD, Schuster, M, Berghella, V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:621.e1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromi, A, Ghezzi, F, Gottardi, A, Cherubino, M, Uccella, S, Valdatta, L. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(1):36.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobodu, O, Nash, CM, Stairs, J. Subcuticular suture type at cesarean delivery and infection risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2024;46(1):102191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckler, R, Quist-Nelson, J, Saccone, G, Ward, H, Berghella, V. Adhesive incisional drapes during cesarean delivery for preventing wound infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2019;4:100090.Google ScholarPubMed
Bamigboye, AA, Hofmeyr, GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;8:CD000163.Google Scholar
Gates, S, Anderson, ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:CD004549.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×