Cesarean Section; DehiscenceNCT06308172
Impact of Single- Versus Double-layer Hysterotomy Closure on Cesarean Niche Development: a Randomized Controlled Trial
A study testing Hysterotomy closure in people with Cesarean Section; Dehiscence and Uterine Bleeding, run by Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
The objective of this randomized monocentric study is to assess potential variations in the incidence and severity of isthmocele morbidity among women undergoing cesarean section with either single or double-layer closure of the hysterotomy. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Cesarean Section; Dehiscence, Uterine Bleeding, Uterus; Scar
- What is being tested?
- Hysterotomy closure
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 150 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 1 Dec 2021to 1 Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- nulliparous
- singleton
- age 18-45
- spontaneous pregnancy or autologous assisted fertilization
- gestational age 38-40 weeks
- elective C-section
- informed consent
Who cannot join
- coagulopathy
- autoimmune diseases
- gestational diabetes
- anticoagulant therapy
- immunosuppressive therapy
- endometriosis
Show all 9Show fewer
- uterine fibromatosis
- spontaneous labour
- connective tissue diseases
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Italy1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Fondazione Cà Granda IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico di Milano
Milan, Mi, 20122
Giuseppe Perugino, MD, 3383030553, giuseppe.perugino@policlinico.mi.it
Floriana Carbone, MD
About this study
The objective of this randomized monocentric study is to assess potential variations in the incidence and severity of isthmocele morbidity among women undergoing cesarean section with either single or double-layer closure of the hysterotomy. Our primary outcome aims to investigate whether there is a reduction in the median duration of intermenstrual spotting in patients belonging to the two respective closure groups
Read the detailed description
Cesarean section, the most widely performed surgical procedure globally, has seen a significant increase in rates over the past decades, rising from 12.1% in 2000 to 21% in 2015 for various reasons. A recognized complication of cesarean sections is the formation of a uterine niche, commonly referred to as isthmocele. However, the true incidence of this post-operative complication remains uncertain, with reported figures ranging widely from 7% to 80%. The considerable variability in these estimates is attributed in part to the varying sensitivity of diagnostic tools. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the definition of a cesarean niche, particularly concerning the dimensions of the defect.
Recent well-designed randomized controlled trials have investigated the long-term outcomes of single versus double-layer hysterotomy closure during C-sections. These studies found no significant differences in isthmocele incidence or intermenstrual spotting. However, limitations such as the lack of correlation between symptom severity and uterine defect dimensions, the inclusion of women in labor, and relatively short follow-up periods are acknowledged weaknesses, prompting the need for further analysis.
Our objective is to compare the outcomes of single versus double-layer hysterotomy closure in terms of intermenstrual spotting and isthmocele incidence in singleton women undergoing elective C-sections. Crucially, standardizing the surgical suturing technique is essential to mitigate potential misleading outcomes resulting from inter-operator variations.
- Conditions
- Cesarean Section; Dehiscence, Uterine Bleeding, Uterus; Scar, Uterus Abnormal, Cesarean Section Complications
- Being tested
- Hysterotomy closure
- Medical subject headings
- Uterine Hemorrhage, Cicatrix, Uterine Anomalies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Hysterotomy closureProcedure or surgery
Hysterotomy closure is done in either one of two ways. Single layer closure consists in a single layer, unlocked suture. Double layer closure consists in a double layer, unlocked suture.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Single-layer | Experimental | Patients who are randomized in this arm undergo a single layer-hysterotomy closure Receives: Procedure: Hysterotomy closure |
| Double-layer | Experimental | Patients who are randomized in this arm undergo a double layer-hysterotomy closure Receives: Procedure: Hysterotomy closure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Intermenstrual bleeding reduction (days)
The primary outcome of the study is to evaluate weather there is a reduction of intermenstrual bleeding in the six months after cesarean section among the two groups of patients.
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
Intra-operatory time
Evaluate evaluate weather there is a difference in operative time among the two groups of patients
Measured: 6 months
Blood loss
Evaluate any difference in intra-operative blood loss (milliliters of blood)
Measured: 6 months
Analgesics
Evaluate any difference in post-operative use of analgesics
Measured: 6 months
Post-operatory recovery time
Evaluate any difference in post-operative recovery time (days)
Measured: 6 months
Time to full patient mobilization
Evaluate any difference in post-operative time to full mobilization
Measured: 6 months
Isthmocele
Evaluate any difference in isthmocele incidence between the two groups
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Mar 2024
- Study start1 Dec 2021
- Primary completion1 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cesarean Section; DehiscenceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 150 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Giuseppe Perugino, MD, Principal investigator, Ospedale Policlinico Maggiore Ca' Granda Milano
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06308172
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CSI/2021
- Status last verified
- Mar 2023
- First submitted
- 6 Mar 2024
- Last updated
- 13 Mar 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Data obtained through this study may be provided to qualified researchers with academic interest in cesarean section outcomes. Data or samples shared will be coded, with no PHI included. Approval of the request and execution of all applicable agreements (i.e. a material transfer agreement) are prerequisites to the sharing of data with the requesting party
Publications
Hegde CV. The never ending debate single-layer versus double-layer closure of the uterine incision at cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014 Aug;64(4):239-40. doi: 10.1007/s13224-014-0573-9. Epub 2014 Jul 23. No abstract available.
PubMed 25136167Qayum K, Kar I, Sofi J, Panneerselvam H. Single- Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2021 Sep 30;13(9):e18405. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18405. eCollection 2021 Sep.
PubMed 34729282Marchand GJ, Masoud A, King A, Ruther S, Brazil G, Ulibarri H, Parise J, Arroyo A, Coriell C, Goetz S, Christensen A, Sainz K. Effect of single- and double-layer cesarean section closure on residual myometrial thickness and isthmocele - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec 24;18(4):322-332. doi: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.71173.
PubMed 34955322Verberkt C, Stegwee SI, Van der Voet LF, Van Baal WM, Kapiteijn K, Geomini PMAJ, Van Eekelen R, de Groot CJM, de Leeuw RA, Huirne JAF; 2Close study group. Single-layer vs double-layer uterine closure during cesarean delivery: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2Close study). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Sep;231(3):346.e1-346.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.12.032. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
PubMed 38154502Budny-Winska J, Zimmer-Stelmach A, Pomorski M. Impact of selected risk factors on uterine healing after cesarean section in women with single-layer uterine closure: A prospective study using two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2022 Jan;31(1):41-48. doi: 10.17219/acem/142519.
PubMed 34738347Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;50(5):578-583. doi: 10.1002/uog.17401. Epub 2017 Oct 9.
PubMed 28070914
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Mar 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Impact of Single- Versus Double-layer Hysterotomy Closure on Cesarean Niche Development: a Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06308172
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CSI/2021
- Conditions
- Cesarean Section; Dehiscence, Uterine Bleeding, Uterus; Scar, Uterus Abnormal, Cesarean Section Complications
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 150 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Dec 2024 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Mar 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The objective of this randomized monocentric study is to assess potential variations in the incidence and severity of isthmocele morbidity among women undergoing cesarean section with either single or double-layer closure of the hysterotomy. Our primary outcome aims to investigate whether there is a reduction in the median duration of intermenstrual spotting in patients belonging to the two respective closure groups
Detailed description
Cesarean section, the most widely performed surgical procedure globally, has seen a significant increase in rates over the past decades, rising from 12.1% in 2000 to 21% in 2015 for various reasons. A recognized complication of cesarean sections is the formation of a uterine niche, commonly referred to as isthmocele. However, the true incidence of this post-operative complication remains uncertain, with reported figures ranging widely from 7% to 80%. The considerable variability in these estimates is attributed in part to the varying sensitivity of diagnostic tools. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the definition of a cesarean niche, particularly concerning the dimensions of the defect.
Recent well-designed randomized controlled trials have investigated the long-term outcomes of single versus double-layer hysterotomy closure during C-sections. These studies found no significant differences in isthmocele incidence or intermenstrual spotting. However, limitations such as the lack of correlation between symptom severity and uterine defect dimensions, the inclusion of women in labor, and relatively short follow-up periods are acknowledged weaknesses, prompting the need for further analysis.
Our objective is to compare the outcomes of single versus double-layer hysterotomy closure in terms of intermenstrual spotting and isthmocele incidence in singleton women undergoing elective C-sections. Crucially, standardizing the surgical suturing technique is essential to mitigate potential misleading outcomes resulting from inter-operator variations.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Single-layer | Experimental | Procedure: Hysterotomy closurePatients who are randomized in this arm undergo a single layer-hysterotomy closure |
| Double-layer | Experimental | Procedure: Hysterotomy closurePatients who are randomized in this arm undergo a double layer-hysterotomy closure |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- nulliparous
- singleton
- age 18-45
- spontaneous pregnancy or autologous assisted fertilization
- gestational age 38-40 weeks
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- coagulopathy
- autoimmune diseases
- gestational diabetes
- anticoagulant therapy
- immunosuppressive therapy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Hysterotomy closureHysterotomy closure is done in either one of two ways. Single layer closure consists in a single layer, unlocked suture. Double layer closure consists in a double layer, unlocked suture. | Procedure or surgery | Double-layer, Single-layer |
Primary outcome
Intermenstrual bleeding reduction (days)
Time frame: 6 months
The primary outcome of the study is to evaluate weather there is a reduction of intermenstrual bleeding in the six months after cesarean section among the two groups of patients.
6 secondary outcomes
Intra-operatory time
Time frame: 6 months
Blood loss
Time frame: 6 months
Analgesics
Time frame: 6 months
Post-operatory recovery time
Time frame: 6 months
Time to full patient mobilization
Time frame: 6 months
Isthmocele
Time frame: 6 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Mar 2024.
- Background: PubMed 25136167Hegde CV. The never ending debate single-layer versus double-layer closure of the uterine incision at cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014 Aug;64(4):239-40. doi: 10.1007/s13224-014-0573-9. Epub 2014 Jul 23. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 34729282Qayum K, Kar I, Sofi J, Panneerselvam H. Single- Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2021 Sep 30;13(9):e18405. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18405. eCollection 2021 Sep.
- Results publication: PubMed 34955322Marchand GJ, Masoud A, King A, Ruther S, Brazil G, Ulibarri H, Parise J, Arroyo A, Coriell C, Goetz S, Christensen A, Sainz K. Effect of single- and double-layer cesarean section closure on residual myometrial thickness and isthmocele - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec 24;18(4):322-332. doi: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2021.71173.
- Results publication: PubMed 38154502Verberkt C, Stegwee SI, Van der Voet LF, Van Baal WM, Kapiteijn K, Geomini PMAJ, Van Eekelen R, de Groot CJM, de Leeuw RA, Huirne JAF; 2Close study group. Single-layer vs double-layer uterine closure during cesarean delivery: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2Close study). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Sep;231(3):346.e1-346.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.12.032. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
- Results publication: PubMed 34738347Budny-Winska J, Zimmer-Stelmach A, Pomorski M. Impact of selected risk factors on uterine healing after cesarean section in women with single-layer uterine closure: A prospective study using two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2022 Jan;31(1):41-48. doi: 10.17219/acem/142519.
- Results publication: PubMed 28070914Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saccone G, McCurdy R, Bujold E, Bifulco G, Berghella V. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;50(5):578-583. doi: 10.1002/uog.17401. Epub 2017 Oct 9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Data obtained through this study may be provided to qualified researchers with academic interest in cesarean section outcomes. Data or samples shared will be coded, with no PHI included. Approval of the request and execution of all applicable agreements (i.e. a material transfer agreement) are prerequisites to the sharing of data with the requesting party
Related trials for Cesarean Section; Dehiscence
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Timing of Cesarean Wound Dressing Removal on Wound Healing in Women With BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²
Cesarean Section, Surgical Wound Infection
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Bioptron Light Therapy on Wound Healing After Caesarean Section
Cesarean Section; Complications, Wound, Dehiscence
Recruiting
Steri-Strip Application Versus Standard Wound Closure for Cesarean Section Incisions
Cesarean Section, Surgical Site Infection
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The Impact of Cesarean Scar Defects on the Success of Assisted Human Reproduction
Cesarean Section; Dehiscence
Recruiting
Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of Vaginal Repair With Leuprorelin and Vaginal Repair in the Treatment of Cesarean Section Scar Defect
Cesarean Section; Dehiscence
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Giuseppe Perugino, MD principal investigator
Ospedale Policlinico Maggiore Ca' Granda Milano
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Hysterotomy closure in people with Cesarean Section; Dehiscence and Uterine Bleeding, run by Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Mar 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Giuseppe Perugino, MD (3383030553 ext. +39, giuseppe.perugino@policlinico.mi.it), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Intermenstrual bleeding reduction (days) (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06308172, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Mar 2024.