Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The CORONIS trial reported differences in short-term maternal morbidity when comparing five pairs of alternative surgical techniques for caesarean section. Here we report outcomes at 3 years follow-up. METHODS: The CORONIS trial was a pragmatic international 2 × 2 × 2 × 2× 2 non-regular fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial done at 19 sites in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sudan. Pregnant women were eligible if they were to undergo their first or second caesarean section through a planned transverse abdominal incision. Women were randomly assigned by a secure web-based allocation system to one intervention from each of the three assigned pairs. All investigators, surgeons, and participants were unmasked to treatment allocation. In this follow-up study, we compared outcomes at 3 years following blunt versus sharp abdominal entry, exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair, single versus double layer closure of the uterus, closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum, and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 for uterine repair. Outcomes included pelvic pain; deep dyspareunia; hysterectomy and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. Outcomes were assessed masked to the original trial allocation. This trial is registered with the Current Controlled Trials registry, number ISRCTN31089967. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014, 13,153 (84%) women were followed-up for a mean duration of 3·8 years (SD 0·86). For blunt versus sharp abdominal entry there was no evidence of a difference in risk of abdominal hernias (adjusted RR 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·11). We also recorded no evidence of a difference in risk of death or serious morbidity of the children born at the time of trial entry (0·99, 0·83-1·17). For exteriorisation of the uterus versus intra-abdominal repair there was no evidence of a difference in risk of infertility (0·91, 0·71-1·18) or of ectopic pregnancy (0·50, 0·15-1·66). For single versus double layer closure of the uterus there was no evidence of a difference in maternal death (0·78, 0·46-1·32) or a composite of pregnancy complications (1·20, 0·75-1·90). For closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum there was no evidence of a difference in any outcomes relating to symptoms associated with pelvic adhesions such as infertility (0·80, 0·61-1·06). For chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures there was no evidence of a difference in the main comparisons for adverse pregnancy outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy, such as uterine rupture (3·05, 0·32-29·29). Overall, severe adverse outcomes were uncommon in these settings. INTERPRETATION: Although our study was not powered to detect modest differences in rare but serious events, there was no evidence to favour one technique over another. Other considerations will probably affect clinical practice, such as the time and cost saving of different approaches

The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: A randomised fractional, factorial trial

Background: Caesarean section is one of the most commonly performed operations on women throughout the world. Rates have increased in recent years – about 20–25% in many developed countries. Rates in other parts of the world vary widely. A variety of surgical techniques for all elements of the caesarean section operation are in use. Many have not yet been rigorously evaluated in randomised controlled trials, and it is not known whether any are associated with better outcomes for women and babies. Because huge numbers of women undergo caesarean section, even small differences in post-operative morbidity rates between techniques could translate into improved health for substantial numbers of women, and significant cost savings. Design: CORONIS is a multicentre, fractional, factorial randomised controlled trial and will be conducted in centres in Argentina, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Sudan. Women are eligible if they are undergoing their first or second caesarean section through a transverse abdominal incision. Five comparisons will be carried out in one trial, using a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 fractional factorial design. This design has rarely been used, but is appropriate for the evaluation of several procedures which will be used together in clinical practice. The interventions are: • Blunt versus sharp abdominal entry • Exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair • Single versus double layer closure of the uterus • Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum (pelvic and parietal) • Chromic catgut versus Polyglactin-910 for uterine repair The primary outcome is death or maternal infectious morbidity (one or more of the following: antibiotic use for maternal febrile morbidity during postnatal hospital stay, antibiotic use for endometritis, wound infection or peritonitis) or further operative procedures; or blood transfusion. The sample size required is 15,000 women in total; at least 7,586 women in each comparison. Discussion: Improvements in health from optimising caesarean section techniques are likely to be more significant in developing countries, because the rates of postoperative morbidity in these countries tend to be higher. More women could therefore benefit from improvements in techniques. Trial registration: The CORONIS Trial is registered in the Current Controlled Trials registry. ISCRTN31089967

Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial

The CORONIS trial reported differences in short-term maternal morbidity when comparing five pairs of alternative surgical techniques for caesarean section. Here we report outcomes at 3 years follow-up.The CORONIS trial was a pragmatic international 2 × 2 × 2 × 2× 2 non-regular fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial done at 19 sites in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sudan. Pregnant women were eligible if they were to undergo their first or second caesarean section through a planned transverse abdominal incision. Women were randomly assigned by a secure web-based allocation system to one intervention from each of the three assigned pairs. All investigators, surgeons, and participants were unmasked to treatment allocation. In this follow-up study, we compared outcomes at 3 years following blunt versus sharp abdominal entry, exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair, single versus double layer closure of the uterus, closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum, and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 for uterine repair. Outcomes included pelvic pain; deep dyspareunia; hysterectomy and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. Outcomes were assessed masked to the original trial allocation. This trial is registered with the Current Controlled Trials registry, number ISRCTN31089967.Between Sept 1, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014, 13,153 (84%) women were followed-up for a mean duration of 3·8 years (SD 0·86). For blunt versus sharp abdominal entry there was no evidence of a difference in risk of abdominal hernias (adjusted RR 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·11). We also recorded no evidence of a difference in risk of death or serious morbidity of the children born at the time of trial entry (0·99, 0·83-1·17). For exteriorisation of the uterus versus intra-abdominal repair there was no evidence of a difference in risk of infertility (0·91, 0·71-1·18) or of ectopic pregnancy (0·50, 0·15-1·66). For single versus double layer closure of the uterus there was no evidence of a difference in maternal death (0·78, 0·46-1·32) or a composite of pregnancy complications (1·20, 0·75-1·90). For closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum there was no evidence of a difference in any outcomes relating to symptoms associated with pelvic adhesions such as infertility (0·80, 0·61-1·06). For chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures there was no evidence of a difference in the main comparisons for adverse pregnancy outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy, such as uterine rupture (3·05, 0·32-29·29). Overall, severe adverse outcomes were uncommon in these settings.Although our study was not powered to detect modest differences in rare but serious events, there was no evidence to favour one technique over another. Other considerations will probably affect clinical practice, such as the time and cost saving of different approaches.UK Medical Research Council and the Department for International Development