[Comparative study of Pfannenstiel's incision and transverse abdominal incision in gynecologic and obstetric surgery]. Pfannenstiel versus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Joel-Cohen or Pfannenstiel incision at cesarean delivery: does it make a difference? Comparison of two transverse abdominal incisions for cesarean delivery.
The ease of execution and the post-operative quality of 2 types of incision commonly performed in pelvic surgery were compared in a prospective randomised study: Pfannenstiel's incision was used in 59 patients and Mouchel's low transverse abdominal incision (LTA) in 60 patients. Results were evaluated 8 days and 3 months after the operation. There was no difference in immediate post-operative results between these two groups of patients. At the 3 month examination, hypoaesthesia of the skin was less frequent in patients who had been operated upon through the LTA incision. The authors conclude that the transmuscular incision is innocuous. To compare the Pfannenstiel incision with transverse muscle-cutting Maylard incision in women who had cesarean delivery.
                Patients were assigned randomly to a Pfannenstiel or Maylard incision. Postoperative treatment was similar for each group. Surgical characteristics, complications, postoperative pain (visual analog scale, analgesic use), and related quality of life (1- and 3-month self-administered questionnaires) were analyzed. Abdominal wall muscle recovery was compared objectively by dynamometer.
                Fifty-four women had a Pfannenstiel incision and 43 had the Maylard incision. There were no differences in intraoperative characteristics, postoperative morbidity, or pain. Women's responses to the Nottingham Health Profile questionnaire at 1 and 3 months postoperatively and clinical and isokinetic testing for abdominal wall strength were similar between the two groups.
                Transecting the rectus muscle was no more deleterious than the Pfannenstiel incision. There was no difference in objectively measured abdominal wall strength. To evaluate whether the technique to open the abdomen might influence the operative time and the maternal and neonatal outcome.
                All consecutive women who underwent a cesarean section at a gestational age greater than or equal to 32 weeks were randomly allocated to have either the Joel-Cohen or the Pfannenstiel incision. Exclusion criteria were two or more previous cesarean sections and previous longitudinal abdominal incision. During the study period 366 patients underwent a cesarean delivery. Of these patients, 56 did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining patients were allocated to the Joel-Cohen (n = 152) group and to the Pfannenstiel (n = 158) group. Extraction time was defined as the time interval from skin incision to the clamping of the umbilical cord.
                The total operative time was similar in both groups [Joel-Cohen 32 min (12-60) vs. Pfannenstiel 33 min (18-70)]. The extraction time was shorter in the Joel-Cohen group than in the Pfannenstiel group [190 s (60-600) vs. 240 s (50-600), p = 0.05]. This remained statistically significant after adjustment for confounding variables (Hazard = 1.26, p = 0.05). No difference was found between groups in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications. No difference was found in the neonatal neurodevelopmental assessment at 6 months of age in relation to the abdominal incision performed.
                The Joel-Cohen method of opening the abdomen at cesarean delivery is faster then the Pfannenstiel technique at delivering the fetus. However, considering the absence of benefits to the mother and the fetus there is no clear indication for performing a Joel-Cohen incision. nan
The Joel-Cohen incision has advantages compared with the Pfannenstiel incision. These are: less fever, pain and analgesic requirements; less blood loss; shorter duration of surgery and hospital stay. These advantages for the mother could be extrapolated to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on severe or long-term morbidity and mortality.