Single- Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Aim: To compare single-layer (SL) with double-layer (DL) uterine closure techniques after caesarean section in terms of ultrasonographic findings and rate of CS complications. Method(s): Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were screened, and relevant studies were included in a meta-analysis. Continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data were pooled as relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Analysis was conducted using Rev Man software (Version 5.4). Result(s): Eighteen RCTs were included in our study. Pooled results favoured DL uterine closure in terms of residual myometrial thickness (MD = -1.15, 95% CI [-1.69, -0.60], P < 0.0001) and dysmenorrhea (RR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.02, 1.81], P = 0.04), while SL closure had shorter operation time than DL closure (MD = -2.25, 95% CI [-3.29, -1.21], P , 0.00001). Both techniques had similar results in terms of uterine dehiscence or rupture (RR = 1.88, 95% CI [0.63, 5.62], P = 0.26), healing ratio (MD = -5.00, 95% CI [-12.40, 2.39], P = 0.18), maternal infectious morbidity (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.66, 1.34], P = 0.72), hospital stay (MD = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.06], P = 0.18), and readmission rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.64, 1.40], P = 0.78). Conclusion(s): DL closure of caesarean uterine scar is associated with more residual myometrial thickness and less dysmenorrhea compared with SL uterine closure. But SL closure has the advantage of the shorter operation time.