MedTrace Logo

Classic Cesarean Section Versus Minimally Invasive Cesarean Section: Pain Assessment

NCT02257255 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 30

Last updated 2015-05-28

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Cesarean section is the most performed abdominal surgery in women, worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers 15% of deliveries the ideal rate of this surgery. However, Brazil presents the highest rates of cesarian section in the world, reaching 85% in hospitals and private clinics.

The most used technique of cesarean section is the known as Pfannenstiel or Classical technique. In 1996, a new technique was described, called Misgav Ladach or minimally invasive technique.

Several studies have show that the minimally invasive technique is faster and promotes lower costs and less intraoperative bleeding. There is no current evidence that this technique is less painful.

This study aims to compare the postoperative pain in both techniques,by means of two pain scales: a one-dimensional scale, the Visual Analogue Scale, and a multidimensional scale, the McGill Scale.

Conditions

  • Pregnancy

Interventions

PROCEDURE

Pfannenstiel cesarean section

Pain scales ( VAS and McGill ) 6, 12 and 24 hours after cesarean to pain assessment

PROCEDURE

Misgav-Ladach cesarean section

Pain scales (VAS and McGill) 6, 12 and 24 hours ater cesarean to pain assessment

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Universidade do Vale do Sapucai

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • IVANILDO ARCHANGELO · UNIVERSIDADE DO VALE DO SAPUCAÍ

  • Daniela F Veiga, MD, PhD · Universidade do Vale do Sapucaí

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
TRIPLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Sex
FEMALE
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2014-05-31
Primary Completion
2015-02-28
Completion
2015-03-31

Countries

  • Brazil

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT02257255 on ClinicalTrials.gov