Abstract
Objective This study compared two methods of expanding the uterine incision at the time of
cesarean delivery, which is associated with the risk of unintended extension.
Study Design This randomized trial included 1,076 women who underwent elective cesarean delivery.
The primary outcome measure was the incidence of unintended extension related to the
method used for expanding the uterine incision.
Results Participants in both groups (blunt vs. sharp) had similar demographic and clinical
characteristics. The incidence of unintended extension (8.8% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.009), mean estimated blood loss (853.67 ± 42 mL vs. 664.80 ± 38 mL; p = 0.001), and blood loss >1000 mL (11.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.009) was significantly higher in the sharp group compared with the blunt group.
No difference in transfusions (7.5% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.440) or the need for additional supertonic agents (16% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.144) was noted.
Conclusion Sharp expansion of the uterine incision was related to a higher risk of unintended
extension and maternal blood loss. Because blunt expansion is associated with a lower
risk for unintended extension and maternal blood loss, it should be the first option
during elective cesarean delivery.
Keywords
cesarean - extension - sharp - blunt
