The Bladder Flap at Cesarean Section: A Randomized Controlled Trial
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00918996|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : June 11, 2009
Last Update Posted : October 9, 2015
Cesarean section is now the most common major surgical procedure performed on women world wide. In the United States, approximately 1 in 4 deliveries is by this method. With the increasing numbers of cesarean sections, there is the need to utilized evidence based techniques to optimize outcomes and minimize complications.Creation of the bladder flap is an integral step of the standard cesarean section. The bladder flap is made by superficially incising and dissecting the peritoneal lining to separate the urinary bladder from the lower uterine segment. Started in the pre-antibiotic era, the rationale for the bladder flap was to enable the surgeon gain access to the lower uterine segment while minimizing injury to the bladder. Its subsequent closure was supposed to protect the peritoneal cavity from intrauterine infection. Since then, closure of the bladder flap has been demonstrated to be unnecessary and has been abandoned. The bladder flap however, continues to be performed without evidence of benefit.
Evidence on the role of the bladder flap in cesarean section is very limited. In emergent cesarean sections where rapid delivery is the goal, the bladder flap is commonly omitted. A simplified method of cesarean section (Pelosi-type) including omission of the bladder among other modifications has been shown to be safe and cost saving. The single randomized trial on omission of the bladder flap as the only modification suggests short term benefits including shorter operating times, reduced blood loss and decreased postoperative analgesic requirements. This study has been criticized for evaluating only short term outcomes and including only primary cesarean sections. The paucity of evidence for or against this commonly utilized technique in cesarean section is the rationale for this study.
The goal of this study is to employ a well designed randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the effects of omitting the bladder flap creation at cesarean section. We hypothesize that omission of the bladder flap in both primary and repeat cesarean sections will be associated with shorter operating time without a significant increase in intraoperative and postoperative complications.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment|
|Cesarean Section||Procedure: Omission of Bladder Flap Creation|
Show Detailed Description
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||258 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||The Bladder Flap at Cesarean Delivery: Establishing Evidence for Practice|
|Study Start Date :||March 2010|
|Primary Completion Date :||May 2011|
|Study Completion Date :||September 2011|
Experimental: No Bladder Flap Group
Uterine incision made 1 cm above the vesico-uterine reflection without incision and dissection of the bladder peritoneum.
Procedure: Omission of Bladder Flap Creation
Omission of bladder flap creation by making uterine incision 1 cm above the vesico-uterine reflection without incision and dissection of the bladder peritoneum.
Other Name: No Flap
No Intervention: Bladder Flap Group
Standard cesarean section technique with incision and dissection of a bladder flap prior to uterine incision.
- Total operating time (from skin incision to closure of the skin). [ Time Frame: Intraoperative ]
- Skin incision to delivery time, skin incision to fascial closure time, blood loss, hematuria, dysuria, urinary retention, febrile morbidity, use of analgesics, hospital days, wound infection, endomyometritis, neonatal outcomes, and readmissions. [ Time Frame: On first postoperative day and at 2-4 week postoperative visit ]
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00918996
|United States, Missouri|
|St Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110|
|Principal Investigator:||George A. Macones, MD, MSCE||Washington University School of Medicine|
|Principal Investigator:||Methodius G. Tuuli, M.D., M.P.H.||Washington University School of Medicine|
|Principal Investigator:||Anthony Odibo, MD, MSCE||Washington University School of Medicine|
|Principal Investigator:||Patricia Fogertey, BSN, MSN||Washington University School of Medicine|