Completed Pregnancy, Children & Inherited Conditions Public Health & Healthcare

Prevention of maternal morbidity after caesarean section in developing countries: a factorial RCT of surgical methods

In plain English

AI plain-English summary

Caesarean sections are among the most common surgeries worldwide, yet surgeons lack clear evidence on which specific techniques reduce infection and other complications. This trial will compare five pairs of surgical methods—such as whether to repair the womb inside or outside the pelvis, and whether to close the abdominal lining or leave it open—across 15,000 women in 12 hospitals across nine developing countries. The problem is stark: despite millions of caesareans performed each year, especially in low-resource settings, the optimal surgical steps remain untested. Infection in the six weeks after surgery is the main outcome, a complication that can lead to prolonged illness, higher healthcare costs, and even death. If this research succeeds, it will produce straightforward, low-cost guidance for surgeons worldwide. Hospitals in developing countries could adopt the safest techniques without expensive equipment or training. The result would be fewer infected wounds, shorter hospital stays, and healthier mothers—a practical improvement in a routine procedure that quietly underpins maternal health globally.

View original technical description
Caesarean section is one of the commonest operations undertaken worldwide and yet despite the number of caesarean sections being performed and the impact of this operation on the short and long term health of women, we know very little about which approaches to doing the caesarean section are associated with the lowest risk of complications. This study will compare five aspects of the surgical procedures used at the time of caesarean section to see which of these aspects is associated with the lowest risk of complications. The five pairs of procedures to be compared are: (a) two different approaches to opening the abdominal wall (?blunt? versus ?sharp?); (b) whether the cut on the womb is repaired while the womb is kept inside the womans pelvis or whether it is repaired outside (extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision); (c) whether the cut on the womb is closed in one layer of stitches or two (single versus double layer closure of the uterus); (d) whether the peritoneum, which is a thin membrane which covers all the organs inside the abdomen, letting them slide over each other easily, (closure versus non-closure of the pelvic and parietal peritoneum); (e) which of two different types of stitch material should be used for closing the womb and part of the abdominal wall (Vicryl versus catgut sutures for closure of the uterus and rectus sheath). The main outcome of the study will be infection in the six weeks following the caesarean section operation. 15,000 women will be recruited from 12 hospitals in 9 different countries.

View the original record at the funder ↗

Researchers

Edgardo Abalos (Co-Investigator)Jai Sharma (Co-Investigator)James Oyieke (Co-Investigator)Matthews Mathai (Co-Investigator)Mohamed El Sheikh (Co-Investigator)Peter Brocklehurst (Principal Investigator)Shabeen Masood (Co-Investigator)Victor Addo (Co-Investigator)

Related Research

Grants with similar aims, by meaning.

Maternal morbidity after caesarean section in developing countries: long term follow-up of a large factorial trial
PREPS - Vaginal Preparation at caesarean section to Reduce Endometritis and Prevent Sepsis – a feasibility study of Chlorhexidine Gluconate
C-Safe: Improving maternal and perinatal outcomes through safe and appropriate caesarean sections in low- and middle-income countries
Developing a safety bundle to prevent postpartum haemorrhage in advanced labour caesarean section (C-Safe)
C-Stich2: Emergency Cervical Cerclage to Prevent Miscarriage and Preterm Birth: a Randomised Controlled Trial

Original classification

Research Grant

Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.