Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Misgav-Ladach method of cesarean section: a step forward in operative technique in obstetrics

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study is to compare the intraoperative and short-term outcomes of two cesarean techniques: the modified Misgav-Ladach and the Pfannenstiel–Kerr.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational cohort study of women undergoing a primary cesarean at the Clinic for Obstetric and Gynecology Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina, between January 2003 and December 2011. The two cesarean techniques were compared for intraoperative and short terms outcomes.

Results

A total of 4,944 women were included in this study, 4,336 allocated to the modified Misgav-Ladach and 608 to the Pfannenstiel–Kerr techniques. The rate of modified Misgav-Ladach increased from 74 % in 2003 to 99 % in 2011. The modified Misgav-Ladach technique was associated with a shorter operative time (13.3 min ± 7.4 vs. 19.1 min ± 6.8, p < 0.05), as well as significantly less surgical material (3.5 ± 2.5 vs. 7.9 ± 2.1, p < 0.05). The modified Misgav-Ladach technique was also associated with lower analgesic requirements, lower rates of febrile morbidity and wound infection compared to the Pfannenstiel–Kerr technique (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of endometritis, wound dehiscence, bowel restitution, postoperative antibiotic use, and hospital stay.

Conclusion

The modified Misgav-Ladach technique is associated with a shorter operative time than Pfannenstiel–Kerr and might lead to better postoperative outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from €39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Chitra K, Gayetri R, Shanthi S (2004) Misgav-Ladach cesarean section vs Pfannenstiel cesarean section. J Obstet Gynecol Ind 54:473–477

    Google Scholar 

  2. Xavier P, Ayres-De-Campos D, Reynols A et al (2005) The modified Misgav-Ladach versus the Pfannenstiel technique for cesarean section: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:878–882

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pfannenstiel J (1897) On the advantages of a transverse cut of the fascia above the symphysis for gynecological laparotomies, and advice on surgical methods and indications. Samml Klin Vortr Gynakol 68:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kerr JMM (1926) The technic of cesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 12:729–734

    Google Scholar 

  5. Joel-Cohen S (1972) Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. New techniques based on time and motion studies. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stark M, Finkel A (1994) Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incision in cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 53:121–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stark M, Chavkin Y, Kupfersztain C et al (1995) Evaluation of combination of procedures in cesarean section. Internat J Gyn Obstet 48:273–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Irion O, Fournet N (1996) Will you leave the peritoneum open when performing your next caesarean section? Contemp Rev Obstet Gynaecol 8:209–212

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hudić I, Fatusić Z, Kamerić L et al (2010) Vaginal delivery after Misgav-Ladach cesarean section—is the risk of uterine rupture acceptable? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23:1156–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fatušić Z, Hudić I, Sinanović O et al (2011) Short-term postnatal quality of life in women with previous Misgav-Ladach caesarean section compared to Pfannenstiel-Dorffler caesarean section method. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 24:1138–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y et al (2011) Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section-a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG 118:410–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ayres-de-Campos D, Patricio B (2000) Modification to the Misgav-Ladach technique for caesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79:326–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofmeyr JG, Novikova N, Mathai M, Shah A (2009) Techniques for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:431–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N (2008) Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 23(1):CD004662

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kulas T, Habek D, Karsa M, Bobić-Vuković M (2008) Modified Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section: clinical experience. Gynecol Obstet Invest 65:222–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fatušić Z, Hudić I (2009) Incidence of post-operative adhesions following Misgav-Ladach caesarean section—a comparative study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 22:157–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ (2007) Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004453

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P et al (2006) Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 19:639–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S et al (2010) The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):43–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ (2002) The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1326–1330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Durnwald C, Mercer B (2003) Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:925–929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jastrow N, Gauthier RJ, Gagnon G et al (2010) Impact of labor at prior cesarean on lower uterine segment thickness in subsequent pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(563):e1–e7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A (2011) Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 115:5–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nabhan AF (2008) Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for caesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 100:69–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Walsh CA (2010) Evidence-based cesarean technique. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:110–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Guido M et al (2010) Should the visceral peritoneum at the bladder flap closed at cesarean sections? A post-partum sonographic and clinical assessment. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23:662–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Guido M et al (2011) Effect of avoiding bladder flap formation in caesarean section on repeat caesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 159:300–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anderson ER, Gates S (2004) Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD004663

  29. Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J et al (1995) Superficial wound disruption after cesarean delivery: effect of the depth and closure of subcutaneous tissue. Obstet Gynecol 85:412–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fatušić Z, Hudić I, Musić A (2011) Misgav-Ladach cesarean section: general consideration. Acta Clin Croat 50:95–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tuuli MG, Rampersad RM, Carbone JF et al (2011) Staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 117:682–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Clinical Center Tuzla, Trnovac bb, 75000, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Igor Hudić, Zlatan Fatušić, Fahrija Skokić, Anela Latifagić, Mirela Kapidžić & Jasenko Fatušić

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

    Emmanuel Bujold

Authors
  1. Igor Hudić
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel Bujold
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zlatan Fatušić
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fahrija Skokić
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anela Latifagić
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mirela Kapidžić
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jasenko Fatušić
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Hudić.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hudić, I., Bujold, E., Fatušić, Z. et al. The Misgav-Ladach method of cesarean section: a step forward in operative technique in obstetrics. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286, 1141–1146 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2448-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2448-6

Keywords