Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2007 June;59(3) > Minerva Ginecologica 2007 June;59(3):231-40



A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology

Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0026-4784

Online ISSN 1827-1650


Minerva Ginecologica 2007 June;59(3):231-40


Comparative study of the “Misgav Ladach” and traditional Pfannenstiel surgical techniques for cesarean section

Belci D. 1, Kos M. 2, Zoricic D. 1, Kuharic L. 1, Slivar A. 1, Begic-Razem E. 1, Grdinic I. 1

1 Pula General Hospital, Pula, Croatia
2 Medical center VILI, Zagreb, Croatia

Aim. The aim of this study was to evaluate the advantages of the Misgav Ladach surgical technique compared to traditional cesarean section.
Methods. A prospective randomized trial of 111 women undergoing cesarean section was carried out in the Pula General Hospital. Forty-nine operations were performed using the Pfannenstiel method of cesarean section, 55 by the Misgav Ladach method and 7 by lower midline laparotomy.
Results. It was proved that the cases where the Misgav Ladach method was implemented, compared to the Pfannenstiel method, showed a significantly shorter delivery/extraction and operative time (P=0.0009), the incision pain on the second postoperative day was significantly lower (0.021), we recorded a quicker stand up and walking time (P=0.013), significantly fewer analgesic injections and a shorter duration of analgesia were required (P=0.0009) and the bowel function was restored to normal sooner (P=0.001).
Conclusion. The Misgav Ladach method of cesarean section has advantages over the Pfannenstiel method in so far as it is significantly quicker to perform, with diminished postoperative pain and less use of postoperative analgesics. The recovery of physiologic function is faster. No differences were found in intraoperative bleeding, maternal morbidity, scar appearance, uterus postoperative involution and the assessment of the inflammation response to the operative technique.

language: English


top of page