Peritoneal adhesion prevention at cesarean section: an analysis of the effectiveness of an absorbable adhesion barrier.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an absorbable adhesion barrier utilized at cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective, two-arm cohort, chart review of primary and subsequent first repeat cesarean sections from January 1, 2006-December 31, 2009. Exclusion criteria were incomplete operative report, history of prior abdominal-pelvic surgery, pelvic inflammatory disease, chorioamnionitis, emergency cesarean delivery or use of corticosteroids within 2 weeks. Adhesion incidence/severity as well as skin incision to newborn delivery times were analyzed. Effects of peritoneal closure and suture types were examined. RESULTS: Of 262 primary cesareans performed, 43% (N= 112) had repeat cesarean section. With barrier, 74% had no adhesions at repeat surgery, versus 22% in the no barrier group (p = 0.011). Eleven percent had grade 2 adhesions with barrier, while 64% had grade 2-3 in the no barrier group (p = 0.012). The barrier group had no grade 3 adhesions. Those with parietal peritoneal closure had less incidence (p = 0.02) and mean adhesion severity (p = 0.03); no significant difference was found per suture type. No statistical difference in time from skin incision to newborn delivery was noted between primary and barrier group (p = 0.006); those without barrier had a statistically longer delivery interval (p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Use of an absorbable adhesion baóóórrier reduces the incidence and severity of adhesions at cesarean.

In-office thermachoice III ablation: a comparison of two anesthetic techniques.

BACKGROUND: Patient comfort and safety are prerequisites for office procedures. STUDY OBJECTIVE: comparison of the fentanyl transdermal patch with injection of local anesthesia for intraoperative/postoperative pain from in-office Thermachoice III ablations. METHODS: Single-center prospective randomized (1:1) cohort study. Primary Endpoint: intraoperative and postoperative VAS pain scores (0 as no pain, 10 as extreme pain). Secondary Endpoints: patient satisfaction between cohorts and adverse events. RESULTS: 41 patients were randomized [21 patch protocol (FP), 20 injection protocol (IP)]. For patch users, the median VAS scores were 2.60 (range 1-4) intraoperatively and 3.30 (range 2-5) postoperatively (p = 0.09, CI = -0.8 to 0.4), with the most common adverse events being nausea (62%) and vomiting (38%). Compared to injection, there was no significant difference in intraoperative VAS score (FP median VAS = 2.60, IP median VAS = 2.59; p = 0.15, CI = -0.05 to 0.48), but a significant difference postoperatively (FP median VAS = 3.30, IP median VAS = 6.0; p = 0.01, CI = -2.6 to -1.4). Less NSAIDs were used postoperatively with the FP. At 24 h, more FP patients were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' than IP patients. CONCLUSION: Patch intraoperative VAS pain scores are comparable to uterine block scores; postoperative VAS pain scores were statistically lower with the FP. FP resulted in more favorable 'satisfaction' rates compared to IP.