Routine cervical dilatation during elective cesarean section and its influence on maternal morbidity: a randomized controlled study. A randomized controlled study investigating the necessity of routine cervical dilatation during elective cesarean section. Is routine cervical dilatation necessary during elective caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial.
To determine the effect of routine intraoperative cervical dilatation during elective cesarean section on maternal morbidity.
                Patients with even numbers in the operative elective cesarean section list were included in the study. Of these, every second patient underwent intraoperative cervical dilatation. All participants in the two groups had otherwise similar preoperative care, operative procedures and subsequent clinical care. Blood loss was estimated and maternal infection status was assessed postoperatively by any rise of temperature or wound infection.
                Of the 131 patients included in the study, 67 underwent cervical dilation and 64 served as controls. There was no significant difference in postoperative hemoglobin, incidence of fever, or wound infection between the two groups. Only two of the cervical dilation group and one control patient developed postoperative fever. A hemoglobin drop of more than 0.5 g/dL was noted in 27 and 26 patients in the cervical dilation and the no dilation groups, respectively (NS). None of the study patients had signs of wound infection.
                Intraoperative cervical dilatation during elective cesarean section did not reduce the risk of postoperative maternal fever, wound infection or change in hemoglobin concentration. To investigate if it was necessary to dilate the cervix routinely during elective cesarean section and to determine the effects of this traditional maneuver on maternal morbidity.
                A total of 150 patients meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled in this prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients were allocated randomly into cervical dilatation group or non-dilated group. In the cervical dilatation group, the surgeon performed cervical dilatation by inserting a double-gloved index finger into the cervical canal of the patients after extraction of placenta and membranes. Endometrial cavity thickness of the patients at postoperative 24 h, development of postoperative febrile-infectious morbidity and postoperative hemoglobin levels were evaluated and compared between the groups.
                The two groups were comparable with regard to demographic and clinical properties. Mean postoperative endometrial cavity thickness of the dilated group was significantly less than the non-dilated group (6.87 ± 2.50, 9.51 ± 3.35 respectively, p < 0.0001). The level of hemoglobin reduction was comparable between the groups (p = 0.37). Febrile morbidity was seen in one patient in the dilated group. Endometritis or wound infection was not encountered in either group during the puerperium.
                Cervical dilatation seems to be an unnecessary intervention during the cesarean section. The purpose of this prospective randomised study was to determine the effect of routine cervical dilatation during elective caesarean section on maternal morbidity.
                Participants with indication for elective caesarean section were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A (n = 200) women with intraoperative cervical dilatation; group B (n = 200) women with no intraoperative cervical dilatation.
                No demographic differences were observed between groups. There was no significant difference between groups in infectious morbidity (P = 0.87) (relative risk (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-2.11), endometritis (P = 0.72) (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.39-7.14), febrile morbidity (P = 0.66) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.51-2.87), wound infection (P = 0.82) (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.44-2.81), endometritis (P = 0.72) (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.39-7.14) or urinary tract infection (P = 1.00) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.28-3.50), and estimated blood loss (P = 0.2). However, group A had longer operative times compared with the group B (P = 0.01).
                Intraoperative digital cervical dilatation during elective caesarean section did not reduce blood loss and postoperative infectious morbidity. The routine digital cervical dilatation during elective caesarean section is not recommended.
There was insufficient evidence of mechanical dilatation of the cervix at non-labour caesarean section for reducing postoperative morbidity. Further randomised controlled trials with adequate methodological quality comparing intraoperative cervical dilatation using a finger, sponge forceps or other instrument during non-labour caesarean section versus no mechanical dilatation for reducing postoperative morbidity are needed.