DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02808.

x
Systematic review
www.bjog.org

Adhesion formation after previous caesarean

sectiona meta-analysis and systematic review
Z Shi,a,b* L Ma,b,c* Y Yang,b* H Wang,d A Schreiber,c X Li,b S Tai,d X Zhao,e J Teng,e L Zhang,e
W Lu,e Y An,e NR Alla,f T Cuig
a
Department of Chemistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Third Affiliated Hospital
of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China c Health Science Center, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA d Department of General
Surgery, Second Clinical College, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China e Heilongjiang Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Harbin,
China f Wistar Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA g Childrens Hospital Boston, Boston, MA, USA
Correspondence: Dr Z Shi, Department of Chemistry, Temple University, 130 Beury Hall, 1901 N. 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.
Email tua64317@temple.edu

Accepted 19 October 2010. Published Online 23 December 2010.

Background The optimal technique for performing caesarean
section with respect to minimising postoperative adhesions has
not been determined.
Objectives To evaluate adhesion formation for three common
caesarean section techniques in women undergoing repeat
caesarean section surgeries.
Search strategy A database was constructed from Medline,
EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Science Digital Library,
China Biological Medicine Database and through contact with
experts in this field from January 1990 to May 2010.
Selection criteria Studies were included if they examined adhesion
formation in repeat caesarean sections as a primary objective,
delineated a clear study design, specified an adhesion scoring
system, and had sufficient patient exclusion criteria.
Data collection and analysis We abstracted data regarding
adhesion formation. The MantelHaenszel random-effects model
was employed for all analyses using odds ratio or inverse variance,
along with 95% CI.
Main results Thirty-three qualified studies including 4423 women
were analysed. There were 406 adhesions among 571 women and
238 adhesions among 596 women in the Starks caesarean
section (also known as MisgavLadach method) group and
modified Starks caesarean section group, respectively, with
pooled OR 4.69 (95% CI 3.326.62; P < 0.01, 12 studies); 1173
adhesions among 1555 women and 1179 adhesions among 1625
women in Starks caesarean section group and classic lower-
segment caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled odds
ratio 1.28 (95% CI 0.971.68; P = 0.08, 21 studies); and 29
adhesions from 102 women and 115 adhesions from 193 women
in modified Starks caesarean section group and classic lower-
segment caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled odds
ratio 0.28 (95% CI 0.100.82; P = 0.02, two studies).
Authors conclusions Closure of the peritoneum in modified
Starks caesarean section resulted in less adhesion formation and
should be recommended.
Keywords Adhesion, caesarean section, postoperative.

Please cite this paper as: Shi Z, Ma L, Yang Y, Wang H, Schreiber A, Li X, Tai S, Zhao X, Teng J, Zhang L, Lu W, An Y, Alla N, Cui T. Adhesion formation
after previous caesarean sectiona meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG 2011;118:410422.

been debated by both caesarean section proponents and

Introduction
Caesarean section surgery has become one of the most
common obstetric operations worldwide, accounting for
over 27% of total deliveries over 2004/05 and 2007/08.1
The basic procedure has been modified over the years and
improved through its extensive practice. However, issues
such as closure or non-closure of the peritoneum have
*These authors contributed equally to this paper.
critics for several reasons.2,3 Many investigators and practi-
tioners have argued that non-closure of the peritoneum has
more advantages and should be recommended,3 although it
does not restore the integrity of the abdominal anatomy.
Referring to data from large pools of women in rando-
mised control trials (RCTs), these advocates for non-clo-
sure assert that it offers benefits both during surgery and
for short-term postoperative outcomes, such as operation
time, blood loss, analgesia requirement, febrile morbidity,

410 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
 Caesarean section techniques: under the cross-fire

return of bowel function, length of hospital stay and infec-
tion.
Nevertheless, because of the limited number of women
in a small number of RCTs concerning long-term out-
comes after caesarean section, it is difficult to draw sound
conclusions about whether or not to close the peritoneum.
Long-term issuessuch as abdominal adhesion formation
found during repeat operations, chronic pelvic pain, and
secondary infertility as the result of abdominal adhesions
after previous caesarean section4have serious conse-
quences, all of which have significant morbidity and high
healthcare costs.5,6
This meta-analysis, based on retrospective observational
studies, compares adhesion formation detected in repeat
caesarean section procedures according to the different
techniques used in the previous surgeries, including Starks
caesarean section (also known as MisgavLadach method),7
modified Starks caesarean section, and classic lower-seg-
ment caesarean section, and determines the factors that
most greatly influence adhesion formation after primary
caesarean section.
Methods
The MOOSE statement8 was referred to as a guideline for
conducting this analysis. We searched Medline, EMBASE,
Cochrane Library, National Science Digital Library
(NSDL) and China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-
disc) for relevant observational studies (all retrospective).
Queries included articles published from January 1990 to
May 2010 in English or Chinese peer-reviewed publica-
tions. Keywords employed were caesarean section (or sec-
tion) and closure (or non-closure) and adhesion. We also
hand-searched bibliographies of original studies, reviews
(including meta-analyses) and relevant conference
abstracts, and contacted some investigators directly. The
date last searched was 1 July 2010. Women included were
section, with other abdominal or pelvic surgeries besides
the previous caesarean section, with occurrences of post-
operative fever or abdominal or pelvic infectious diseases,
whose surgeries involved anti-adhesives, or whose previous
caesarean section procedures were performed in hospitals
other than the hospitals where their repeat caesarean
sections were performed. We extracted data about study
design and methods, patient inclusion and exclusion crite-
ria, clinical characteristics, procedure of previous caesarean
section, description of adhesion, interval from skin inci-
sion to delivery of the newborn, blood loss and complica-
tions of the repeat caesarean section. According to
severity of adhesion, adhesion formation in different oper-
ation groups was further evaluated in subgroups. Among
the three groups, standard surgical procedures were per-
formed in the previous caesarean section. In the Starks
caesarean section, blunt separation of tissues along natural
tissue planes with a minimum of sharp dissection was
performed; the transverse lower segment uterine incision
was closed with one layer of continuous suture, and nei-
ther visceral nor parietal peritoneum was closed. In the
modified Starks caesarean section, both peritoneal layers
were closed with a continuous suture, and the other
procedural elements were exactly the same as in Starks
caesarean section. In the classic lower-segment caesarean
section, more manoeuvres were performed, including
pushing down of the bladder to achieve greater exposure
of the uterine lower segment, closing the transverse lower
segment uterine incision with two layers of continuous
suture, and closure of both peritoneal layers (Table 1).10
There were several scoring systems measuring severity of
abdominal cavity adhesion, including those concerning
infertility recommended by the American Fertility Society,11
Table 1. Major differences of the three caesarean sections
procedures

divided into three groups according to the techniques in Starks Modified Classic
their previous caesarean section: Starks caesarean section, Starks lower-segment
modified Starks caesarean section, and classic lower-seg-
ment caesarean section. Skin incision Transverse Transverse Vertical
Two authors independently selected relevant studies, Subcutaneous tissue Blunt Blunt Sharp
assessed trial quality according to the STROBE statement9 division and (by hand) (by hand) (by cutting)
and preset the criteria described in the following text, peritoneum opening
then extracted data. Questionable studies were confirmed Dissection of No No Yes*
bladder off the uterus
or rejected after discussion with a third author. Studies
Suturing of uterus One layer One layer Two layers
that compared techniques during previous caesarean sec- Peritoneum closure Neither Both Both
tion concerning abdominal and pelvic adhesion formation (parietal or visceral)
were included. Studies were also required to have a clear Rectus muscle stitched No Yes Yes
study design and an adhesion scoring scale, as well as Operation time Shortest Longer Longest
procedure descriptions for the previous caesarean section
*Bladder was pushed down from the uterus before incision on the
techniques. Studies were rejected if they included women uterus.
who had adhesions found in the previous caesarean

2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 411
 Shi et al.
those concerning adhesive bowel obstruction,12 and those
concerning secondary adhesion after previous caesarean
section.13 We considered all the conditions and recon-
structed a convenient scoring scale for all included studies
(Tables S1S3).
Statistical analyses were conducted using Review
Manager version 5.0 software (Cochrane Collaboration).
Pooled odds ratio (OR) or inverse variance (IV) and 95%
CI were determined by choice between the MantelHaens-
zel fixed-effects or random-effects models, whichever was
most conservative14 (showing less efficacy, with a higher
P value, and the random-effects model qualified for this
purpose) and shown in Forrest plot. Funnel plots were
applied to indicate publication bias. Statistical between-
study heterogeneity was assessed by I2 test15 and chi-square
test. Differences between subgroups were assessed on the
basis of the chi-square statistic. For all the tests performed,
statistical significance was achieved if the P value was <0.05
(for overall effect of intervention) or <0.10 (for heterogene-
ity test).14
Results
Thirty-three qualified studies1648 were included for quanti-
tative analysis (12 studies investigating adhesion formation
after Starks caesarean section versus modified Starks cae-
sarean section during previous caesarean section; 21 studies
examining adhesion formation comparing Starks caesarean
section and classic lower-segment caesarean section; and
two studies analysing the same indices comparing modified
Starks caesarean section and classic lower segment caesar-
ean section, characteristics in Table S1, selection process
shown in Figure 1), including 4423 women.
Starks caesarean section versus modified Starks
caesarean section
There were 406 cases of adhesion formation among 571
women who had undergone previous Starks caesarean sec-
tion compared with 238 cases of adhesion among 596
women who had undergone previous modified Starks cae-
sarean section, with pooled OR 4.69 (95% CI 3.326.62, 12
studies, P < 0.01 for overall effect, with moderate heteroge-
neity, I2 = 34%). In the grade 1 adhesion formation com-
parison, there were 182 adhesions in the Starks caesarean
section group and 129 adhesions in the modified Starks
caesarean section group, with a pooled OR of 1.70 (95%
CI 1.282.25, 12 studies, P < 0.01 for overall effect, with
minimum heterogeneity, I2 = 0%). There were 138 grade 2
adhesions in the Starks caesarean section group and 72
such cases in the modified Starks caesarean section group,
with a pooled OR of 2.99 (95% CI 1.565.72, nine studies,
P < 0.01 for overall effect, with medium heterogeneity,
I2 = 63%). In the grade 3 adhesion comparison, there were
412 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
86 cases in the Starks caesarean section group and 37 cases
in the modified Starks caesarean section group, with a
pooled OR of 3.79 (95% CI 2.346.12, 12 studies, P < 0.01
for overall effect, with minimum heterogeneity, I2 = 0%).
Concerning the interval from skin incision to delivery of
the newborn, there were 107 women in the Starks caesar-
ean section group and 97 women in the modified Starks
caesarean section group, with an IV of 5.24 (95% CI )2.60
to 13.08, two studies, P = 0.19 for overall effect, with very
high heterogeneity, I2 = 98%, time measured in minutes,
Figure 2). The above results showed a clear decrease in risk
of adhesion formation after modified Starks caesarean
section.
Starks caesarean section versus classic lower-seg-
ment caesarean section
There were 1173 cases of adhesion formation among 1555
women who had undergone previous Starks caesarean sec-
tion, compared with 1179 cases of adhesion formation
among 1625 women who had undergone previous classic
lower-segment caesarean section, with pooled OR 1.28
(95% CI 0.971.68, 21 studies, P = 0.08 for overall effect,
with medium heterogeneity, I2 = 33%). There were 502
cases and 742 cases of grade 1 adhesion formation in the
Starks caesarean section group and classic lower-segment
caesarean section group, respectively, with a pooled OR of
0.57 (95% CI 0.420.77, 21 studies, P < 0.01 for overall
effect, with medium heterogeneity, I2 = 65%). There were
405 cases of grade 2 adhesion in the Starks caesarean sec-
tion group and 350 such cases in the classic lower-segment
caesarean section group, with a pooled OR of 1.78 (95%
CI 1.053.00, 16 studies, P = 0.03 for overall effect, with
high heterogeneity, I2 = 78%). In the grade 3 adhesion
subgroup, there were 284 adhesion cases in the Starks cae-
sarean section group and 87 cases in the classic lower-
segment caesarean section group, with a pooled OR of
3.62 (95% CI 2.385.50, 20 studies, P < 0.01 for overall
effect, with medium heterogeneity, I2 = 38%). Concerning
the interval from skin incision to opening of the perito-
neum, there were 680 women in the Starks caesarean sec-
tion group and 657 women in the classic lower-segment
caesarean section group, with an IV of 4.63 (3.705.56, five
studies, P < 0.01 for overall effect, with medium heteroge-
neity, I2 = 72%). Concerning the interval from skin inci-
sion to delivery of the newborn, there were 225 women in
the Starks caesarean section group and 185 women in the
classic lower-segment caesarean section group, with an IV
of 0.82 (95% CI )4.33 to 5.97, three studies, P = 0.75 for
overall effect, with very high heterogeneity, I2 = 97%).
With respect to blood loss during repeated caesarean sec-
tion from skin incision to opening of the peritoneum,
there were 119 women in the Starks caesarean section
group and 135 women in the classic lower-segment
 Caesarean section techniques: under the cross-fire

Records identified through primary database searching (n = 112)

Identification
Records after duplicates were
removed* (n = 111)

Screening
Records screened
(n = 111)
Review articles excluded (n = 6)

Full-text articles excluded:

Comparing adhesion condition during
Eligibility

obstetrical and gynecological operations

Full-text assessed for
eligibility (n = 105)
Included
(n = 20);
Classic lower segment transverse CS with
different abdominal incisions (n = 4);
Without excluding multiple abdominal or
pelvic operations, pelvic infectious
diseases, postoperative fever, or adhesion
found in primary CS (n = 12);
Comparing adhesion condition between

first and second CS (n = 1);

Studies included in
qualitative synthesis (n = 33)
Comparing inside and outside peritoneal
CS (n = 5);
Without adhesion scoring criteria (n = 27);
Prospective studies (n = 3).

Studies included in quantitative synthesis

(meta-analysis) (n = 33, with 4423 participants)

Secondary outcomes

Primary outcomes
Analysis

Interval from skin Complications

incision to delivery of Blood loss
in repeat CS
the newborn
Adhesion formation

Figure 1. Flow chart of selection process. Primary search: studies with a primary objective to examine adhesion formation after primary caesarean
section based on different tissue division and suture techniques were identified. *One study had duplicate publications in both English and Chinese.

caesarean section group, with an IV of 19.50 (95% CI
17.8621.13, three studies, P < 0.01 for overall effect, with
minimum heterogeneity, I2 = 0%, blood volume measured
in millilitres, Figure 3). No study reported surgical compli-
cations in repeat caesarean section involving bladder injury
or lateral extension of uterine incision. The above results
showed a similar total adhesion formation after Starks cae-
sarean section and classic lower-segment caesarean section.
It also showed that there were fewer grade 1 adhesions but
more grade 2 and grade 3 adhesions after Starks caesarean
section, which was also reflected by more blood loss.
Modified Starks caesarean section versus classic
lower-segment caesarean section
There were 29 adhesions among 102 women who underwent
previous modified Starks caesarean section, and 115 adhe-
sions among 193 women who underwent previous classic
lower-segment caesarean section, with pooled OR being 0.28
(95% CI 0.100.82, two studies, P = 0.02 for overall effect,
with high heterogeneity, I2 = 75%). There were 20 cases and
71 cases of grade 1 adhesion formation in the modified
Starks caesarean section group and the classic lower segment
caesarean section group, respectively, with a pooled OR of

2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 413
 Shi et al.

A Total adhesion
Starks Modified Starks Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 57 75 13 57 10.4% 10.72 [4.75, 24.20]
Chen 2008 25 32 28 40 7.3% 1.53 [0.52, 4.49]
Hamel 2007 23 30 13 32 7.0% 4.80 [1.60, 14.45]
Hao 2005 58 75 18 51 10.8% 6.25 [2.84, 13.76]
Kang 2007 35 46 16 46 9.1% 5.97 [2.40, 14.81]
Liang 2008 34 36 70 104 4.4% 8.26 [1.87, 36.41]
Nian 2008 32 58 21 55 11.4% 1.99 [0.94, 4.22]
Tian 2006 10 15 12 40 5.7% 4.67 [1.31, 16.60]
Wang 2007' 20 35 17 54 9.5% 2.90 [1.20, 7.01]
Wang 2008 14 42 4 42 6.1% 4.75 [1.41, 15.99]
Zhang 2006 57 75 18 50 10.9% 5.63 [2.57, 12.33]
Zhang 2009 41 52 8 25 7.3% 7.92 [2.71, 23.14]

Total (95% CI) 571 596 100.0% 4.69 [3.32, 6.62]

Total events 406 238
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.12; 2 = 16.71, df = 11 (P = 0.12); I2 = 34%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 8.80 (P < 0.00001) Favours Starks Favours modified Stark

B Funnel plot
0 SE(log[OR])

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

OR
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

C Grade 1 adhesion
Starks Modified Starks Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 10 75 8 57 8.0% 0.94 [0.35, 2.56]
Chen 2008 17 32 20 40 9.3% 1.13 [0.45, 2.87]
Hamel 2007 2 30 3 32 2.3% 0.69 [0.11, 4.45]
Hao 2005 33 75 14 51 13.7% 2.08 [0.97, 4.46]
Kang 2007 20 46 12 46 10.4% 2.18 [0.90, 5.25]
Liang 2008 10 36 13 104 9.2% 2.69 [1.06, 6.84]
Nian 2008 7 58 10 55 7.3% 0.62 [0.22, 1.76]
Tian 2006 8 15 10 40 5.2% 3.43 [0.99, 11.86]
Wang 2007' 14 35 16 54 10.1% 1.58 [0.65, 3.87]
Wang 2008 6 42 3 42 3.8% 2.17 [0.50, 9.31]
Zhang 2006 32 75 14 50 13.6% 1.91 [0.89, 4.13]
Zhang 2009 23 52 6 25 7.0% 2.51 [0.86, 7.31]

Total (95% CI) 571 596 100.0% 1.70 [1.28, 2.25]

Total events 182 129
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.00; 2 = 10.03, df = 11 (P = 0.53); I2 = 0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.65 (P = 0.0003)
Favours Starks Favours modified Stark

Figure 2. Starks caesarean section versus modified Starks caesarean section: (A) total adhesions; (B) funnel plot; (C) grade 1 adhesions; (D) grade 2
adhesions; (E) grade 3 adhesions; (F) interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn.

414 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
 Caesarean section techniques: under the cross-fire

D Grade 2 adhesion
Starks Modified Starks Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 30 75 4 57 11.9% 8.83 [2.89, 26.97]
Hamel 2007 15 30 9 32 12.4% 2.56 [0.89, 7.32]
Hao 2005 20 75 4 51 11.7% 4.27 [1.36, 13.39]
Kang 2007 12 46 4 46 11.1% 3.71 [1.10, 12.53]
Liang 2008 7 36 36 104 13.4% 0.46 [0.18, 1.14]
Nian 2008 15 58 8 55 13.1% 2.05 [0.79, 5.31]
Wang 2007' 4 35 1 54 5.8% 6.84 [0.73, 63.96]
Zhang 2006 20 75 4 50 11.7% 4.18 [1.33, 13.11]
Zhang 2009 15 52 2 25 8.9% 4.66 [0.98, 22.29]

Total (95% CI) 482 474 100.0% 2.99 [1.56, 5.72]

Total events 138 72
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.60; 2 = 21.62, df = 8 (P = 0.006); I2 = 63%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.31 (P = 0.0009) Favours Starks Favours modified Stark

E Grade 3 adhesion
Starks Modified Starks Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI

Chen 2007 17 75 1 57 5.5% 16.41 [2.11, 127.49]

Chen 2008 8 32 8 40 18.5% 1.33 [0.44, 4.06]
Hamel 2007 6 30 1 32 4.8% 7.75 [0.87, 68.77]
Hao 2005 5 75 0 51 2.7% 8.04 [0.43, 148.58]
Kang 2007 3 46 0 46 2.6% 7.48 [0.38, 149.08]
Liang 2008 17 36 21 104 35.0% 3.54 [1.57, 7.96]
Nian 2008 10 58 3 55 12.7% 3.61 [0.94, 13.91]
Tian 2006 2 15 2 40 5.4% 2.92 [0.37, 22.90]
Wang 2007' 2 35 0 54 2.4% 8.13 [0.38, 174.65]
Wang 2008 8 42 1 42 5.1% 9.65 [1.15, 81.02]
Zhang 2006 5 75 0 50 2.7% 7.88 [0.43, 145.73]
Zhang 2009 3 52 0 25 2.6% 3.61 [0.18, 72.54]

Total (95% CI) 571 596 100.0% 3.79 [2.34, 6.12]

Total events 86 37
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.00; 2 = 7.84, df = 11 (P = 0.73); I2 = 0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 5.44 (P < 0.00001)
Favours Starks Favours modified Stark

F Interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn

Starks CS Modified Starks CS Mean diffrence Mean diffrence
Study or Subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, Random, 95% CI IV, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 19.7 3.1 75 10.5 2.4 57 50.5% 9.20 [8.26, 10.14]
Chen 2008 11.5 3.9 32 10.3 4.2 40 49.5% 1.20 [0.68, 3.08]

Total (95% CI) 107 97 100.0% 5.24 [2.60, 13.08]

Heterogeneity: 2 = 31.43; 2 = 55.87, df = 1 (P < 0.00001); I2 = 98%
100 50 0 50 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.31 (P = 0.19)
Favours Starks Favours modified Stark

Figure 2. (Continued)

0.44 (95% CI 0.250.79, two studies, P < 0.01 for overall
effect, with minimum heterogeneity, I2 = 0%). There were
eight cases of grade 2 adhesion in the modified Starks cae-
sarean section group and 33 such cases in the classic lower-
segment caesarean section group, with a pooled OR of 0.55
(95% CI 0.12, 2.45, two studies, P = 0.43 for overall effect,
with medium heterogeneity, I2 = 65%). In the grade 3 adhe-
sion comparison, there was one case in the modified Starks
caesarean section group and 11 cases in the classic lower-seg-
ment caesarean section group, with a pooled OR of 0.26
(95% CI 0.051.52, two studies, P = 0.14 for overall effect,
with minimum heterogeneity, I2 = 0%). With respect to
interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn, there
were 57 women and 87 women in the modified Starks cae-
sarean section group and the classic lower-segment caesarean
section group, respectively, indicated by one study, with an
IV of 4.30 (95% CI )5.17 to )3.43, P < 0.01, Figure 4).
These results showed fewer total and grade 1 adhesion for-
mations after modified Starks caesarean section, which was
also shown by shorter operation duration.
Discussion
Adhesion is one of the most important postoperative
complications. Occurrence of adhesions after caesarean sec-
tion could increase the duration of subsequent operations,

2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 415
 Shi et al.

A Total adhesion
Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI

Chen 2002 20 30 22 30 4.5% 0.73 [0.24, 2.21]

Chen 2007 39 75 33 87 9.2% 1.77 [0.95, 3.32]
Cheng 2005 5 34 12 42 4.2% 0.43 [0.13, 1.38]
Deng 2005 20 61 24 72 7.9% 0.98 [0.47, 2.01]
Ding 2006 20 32 27 52 6.1% 1.54 [0.63, 3.79]
Hong 2006 36 45 33 40 4.6% 0.85 [0.28, 2.54]
Huang 2007 482 482 482 482 Not estimable
Li 2005$ 34 46 17 36 5.8% 3.17 [1.25, 8.01]
Lin 2006 27 79 24 73 8.6% 1.06 [0.54, 2.08]
Liu 2007 35 62 20 50 7.5% 1.94 [0.91, 4.14]
Luo 2006 60 60 52 52 Not estimable
Niu 2006 14 20 13 20 3.4% 1.26 [0.33, 4.73]
Qu 2006 94 96 139 142 2.0% 1.01 [0.17, 6.19]
Ran 2004 3 29 9 40 3.1% 0.40 [0.10, 1.62]
Song 2008$ 63 79 26 40 6.5% 2.12 [0.91, 4.96]
Wang 2005 27 79 24 73 8.6% 1.06 [0.54, 2.08]
Wang 2007$ 35 35 53 55 0.8% 3.32 [0.15, 71.18]
Xu 2006 81 120 50 68 8.8% 0.75 [0.39, 1.45]
Yang 2005 24 24 28 28 Not estimable
Yu 2005 20 31 21 39 5.5% 1.56 [0.59, 4.10]
Zheng 2007 34 36 70 104 2.8% 8.26 [1.87, 36.41]

Total (95% CI) 1555 1625 100.0% 1.28 [0.97, 1.68]

Total events 1173 1179
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.11; 2 = 25.35, df = 17 (P = 0.09); I2 = 33%
0.02 0.1 1 10 50
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.76 (P = 0.08)
Favours Starks Favours lower segment

B Funnel plot
0 SE(log[OR])

0.5

1.5

OR
2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Figure 3. Starks caesarean section versus classic lower-segment caesarean section: (A) total adhesions; (B) funnel plot; (C) grade 1 adhesions; (D)
grade 2 adhesions; (E) grade 3 adhesions; (F) interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn; (G) interval from skin incision to delivery of the
newborn; (H) blood loss from skin incision to opening of peritoneum.

the incidence of injury to the intestines, bladder and ureter, treatment of adhesion complications.49 Adhesions are also
and increase bleeding. In a 10-year period, 5.7% of women considered a significant causative factor in secondary
who underwent caesarean section were admitted again for female infertility.50

416 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
 Caesarean section techniques: under the cross-fire

C Grade 1 adhesion
Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI

Chen 2002 16 30 18 30 4.3% 0.76 [0.27, 2.12]

Chen 2007 10 75 24 87 5.3% 0.40 [0.18, 0.91]
Cheng 2005 4 34 2 42 2.2% 2.67 [0.46, 15.53]
Deng 2005 14 61 15 72 5.2% 1.13 [0.50, 2.58]
Ding 2006 5 32 16 52 4.0% 0.42 [0.14, 1.28]
Hong 2006 33 45 33 40 4.2% 0.58 [0.20, 1.67]
Huang 2007 134 482 254 482 8.0% 0.35 [0.26, 0.45]
Li 2005$ 10 46 12 36 4.5% 0.56 [0.21, 1.49]
Lin 2006 15 79 20 73 5.5% 0.62 [0.29, 1.33]
Liu 2007 28 62 20 50 5.6% 1.24 [0.58, 2.63]
Luo 2006 15 60 30 52 5.3% 0.24 [0.11, 0.55]
Niu 2006 3 20 8 20 2.7% 0.26 [0.06, 1.21]
Qu 2006 52 96 116 142 6.5% 0.26 [0.15, 0.48]
Ran 2004 3 29 2 40 2.1% 2.19 [0.34, 14.05]
Song 2008$ 47 79 24 40 5.5% 0.98 [0.45, 2.13]
Wang 2005 15 79 20 73 5.5% 0.62 [0.29, 1.33]
Wang 2007$ 17 35 46 55 4.6% 0.18 [0.07, 0.49]
Xu 2006 59 120 36 68 6.4% 0.86 [0.47, 1.56]
Yang 2005 6 24 14 28 3.7% 0.33 [0.10, 1.09]
Yu 2005 6 31 19 39 4.1% 0.25 [0.08, 0.75]
Zheng 2007 10 36 13 104 4.7% 2.69 [1.06, 6.84]

Total (95% CI) 1555 1625 100.0% 0.57 [0.42, 0.77]

Total events 502 742
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.29; 2 = 56.96, df = 20 (P < 0.0001); I2 = 65%
0.02 0.1 1 10 50
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.60 (P = 0.0003) Favours Starks Favours lower segment

D Grade 2 adhesion
Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2002 3 30 3 30 4.8% 1.00 [0.19, 5.40]
Chen 2007 30 75 5 87 7.0% 10.93 [3.97, 30.14]
Cheng 2005 1 34 10 42 3.7% 0.10 [0.01, 0.80]
Ding 2006 7 32 9 52 6.7% 1.34 [0.44, 4.03]
Huang 2007 203 482 203 482 9.4% 1.00 [0.77, 1.29]
Li 2005$ 16 46 2 36 5.2% 9.07 [1.92, 42.71]
Luo 2006 30 60 20 52 8.0% 1.60 [0.75, 3.40]
Niu 2006 6 20 4 20 5.5% 1.71 [0.40, 7.34]
Qu 2006 35 96 18 142 8.4% 3.95 [2.07, 7.54]
Ran 2004 0 29 6 40 2.4% 0.09 [0.00, 1.66]
Song 2008$ 11 79 2 40 5.2% 3.07 [0.65, 14.60]
Wang 2007$ 15 35 5 55 6.6% 7.50 [2.41, 23.39]
Xu 2006 20 120 12 68 7.9% 0.93 [0.42, 2.05]
Yang 2005 11 24 13 28 6.8% 0.98 [0.33, 2.91]
Yu 2005 10 31 2 39 5.0% 8.81 [1.76, 44.07]
Zheng 2007 7 36 36 104 7.4% 0.46 [0.18, 1.14]

Total (95% CI) 1229 1317 100.0% 1.78 [1.05, 3.00]

Total events 405 350
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.74; 2 = 69.36, df = 15 (P < 0.00001); I2 = 78%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.16 (P = 0.03) Favours Starks Favours lower segment

Figure 3. (Continued)

Controversies still exist about adhesion formation after
previous caesarean section concerning closure of the perito-
neum, both with reasonable theories. Some studies showed
that peritoneal healing occurs by simultaneous multi-site
repair as the result of migrating mesothelial cells with
mesothelial matrix formation51 without the need for repo-
sitioning of the peritoneum, and peritoneal closure would
lead to foreign body reactions to the suture material,
ischaemia, tissue necrosis and inflammation.52 Hence, with-
out closure of the peritoneum, there will be less adhesion
formation. However, it takes 6 weeks for the postpartum
uterus to return to normal size and position completely,
whereas peritoneal healing occurs within 35 days after
caesarean section. Hence, the enlarged postpartum uterus
may act as a mechanical disruptive barrier for the routine
mesothelial matrix formation of peritoneal healing,53

2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 417
 Shi et al.

E Grade 3 adhesion
Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight MH, Random, 95% CI MH, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2002 1 30 1 30 1.9% 1.00 [0.06, 16.76]
Chen 2007 17 75 4 87 7.4% 6.08 [1.95, 19.01]
Deng 2005 6 61 9 72 7.7% 0.76 [0.26, 2.28]
Ding 2006 8 32 2 52 4.7% 8.33 [1.64, 42.28]
Hong 2006 3 45 0 40 1.8% 6.67 [0.33, 133.22]
Huang 2007 145 482 25 482 13.8% 7.87 [5.03, 12.30]
Li 2005$ 8 46 3 36 5.8% 2.32 [0.57, 9.45]
Lin 2006 12 79 4 73 7.1% 3.09 [0.95, 10.06]
Liu 2007 7 62 0 50 1.9% 13.65 [0.76, 245.09]
Luo 2006 15 60 2 52 5.1% 8.33 [1.81, 38.46]
Niu 2006 5 20 1 20 2.9% 6.33 [0.67, 60.16]
Qu 2006 7 96 5 142 7.1% 2.16 [0.66, 7.00]
Ran 2004 0 29 1 40 1.5% 0.45 [0.02, 11.35]
Song 2008$ 5 79 0 40 1.8% 5.98 [0.32, 110.90]
Wang 2005 12 79 4 73 7.1% 3.09 [0.95, 10.06]
Wang 2007$ 3 35 2 55 3.9% 2.48 [0.39, 15.68]
Xu 2006 2 120 2 68 3.5% 0.56 [0.08, 4.06]
Yang 2005 7 24 1 28 3.0% 11.12 [1.26, 98.49]
Yu 2005 4 31 0 39 1.8% 12.93 [0.67, 249.97]
Zheng 2007 17 36 21 104 10.1% 3.54 [1.57, 7.96]

Total (95% CI) 1521 1583 100.0% 3.62 [2.38, 5.50]

Total events 284 87
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.28; 2 = 30.75, df = 19 (P = 0.04); I2 = 38%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 6.01 (P < 0.00001)
Favours Starks Favours lower segment

F Interval from skin incision to opening of peritoneum

Starks CS Lower segment CS Mean diffrence Mean diffrence
Study or Subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, Random, 95% CI IV, Random, 95% CI

Huang 2007 14.1 2.9 482 9.2 3.4 482 29.5% 4.90 [4.50, 5.30]
Luo 2006 15.3 2.9 60 9.36 3.46 52 20.6% 5.94 [4.75, 7.13]
Song 2008$ 20 7 79 16 5 40 11.4% 4.00 [1.81, 6.19]
Wang 2007$ 9.46 2.52 35 6.25 1.89 55 23.2% 3.21 [2.24, 4.18]
Yang 2005 14.34 2.87 24 9.34 3.41 28 15.2% 5.00 [3.29, 6.71]

Total (95% CI) 680 657 100.0% 4.63 [3.70, 5.56]

Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.72; 2 = 14.52, df = 4 (P = 0.006); I2 = 72%
100 50 0 50 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 9.77 (P < 0.00001)
Favours Starks Favours lower segment

G Interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn

Starks Lower segment Mean diffrence Mean diffrence
Study or Subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, Random, 95% CI IV, Random, 95% CI

Chen 2002 9.67 7.18 30 10.83 8.14 30 29.7% 1.16 [5.04, 2.72]
Chen 2007 19.7 3.1 75 14.8 2.9 87 35.3% 4.90 [3.97, 5.83]
Xu 2006 7.8 4.2 120 9.4 3.5 68 35.1% 1.60 [2.72, 0.48]

Total (95% CI) 225 185 100.0% 0.82 [4.33, 5.97]

Heterogeneity: 2 = 19.37; 2 = 79.42, df = 2 (P = 0.00001); I2 = 97%
100 50 0 50 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.31 (P = 0.75)
Favours Starks Favours lower segment

H Blood loss from skin incision to opening of peritoneum

Starks Lower segment Mean diffrence Mean diffrence
Study or Subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, Random, 95% CI IV, Random, 95% CI
Luo 2006 61.3 6.72 60 41.33 7.16 52 40.0% 19.97 [17.39, 22.55]
Wang 2007$ 50.26 6.44 35 31.45 5.28 55 41.1% 18.81 [16.26, 21.36]
Yang 2005 60.32 6.7 24 40.34 7.12 28 18.9% 19.98 [16.22, 23.74]

Total (95% CI) 119 135 100.0% 19.50 [17.86, 21.13]

Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.00; 2 = 0.47, df = 2 (P = 0.79); I2 = 0%
20 10 0 10 20
Test for overall effect: Z = 23.38 (P < 0.00001)
Favours Starks Favours lower segment

Figure 3. (Continued)

418 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
 Caesarean section techniques: under the cross-fire

A Total adhesion
Modified Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI

Chen 2007 13 57 33 87 50.1% 0.48 [0.23, 1.03]

Wang 2007 16 45 82 106 49.9% 0.16 [0.08, 0.35]

Total (95% CI) 102 193 100.0% 0.28 [0.10, 0.82]

Total events 29 115
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.45; 2 = 4.02, df = 1 (P = 0.04); I2 = 75%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.32 (P = 0.02)
Favours modified Starks Favours lower segment

B Grade 1 adhesion
Modified Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 8 57 24 87 42.8% 0.43 [0.18, 1.04]
Wang 2007 12 45 47 106 57.2% 0.46 [0.21, 0.98]

Total (95% CI) 102 193 100.0% 0.44 [0.25, 0.79]

Total events 20 71
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.00; 2 = 0.01, df = 1 (P = 0.92); I2 = 0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.75 (P = 0.006) Favours modified Starks Favours lower segment

C Grade 2 adhesion
Modified Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 4 57 5 87 46.6% 1.24 [0.32, 4.82]
Wang 2007 4 45 28 106 53.4% 0.27 [0.09, 0.83]

Total (95% CI) 102 193 100.0% 0.55 [0.12, 2.45]

Total events 8 33
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.76; 2 = 2.89, df = 1 (P = 0.09); I2 = 65%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.78 (P = 0.43)
Favours modified Starks Favours lower segment

D Grade 3 adhesion
Modified Starks Lower segment Odds ratio Odds ratio
Study or Subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M-H, Random, 95% CI M-H, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 1 57 4 87 62.9% 0.37 [0.04, 3.40]
Wang 2007 0 45 7 106 37.1% 0.15 [0.01, 2.61]

Total (95% CI) 102 193 100.0% 0.26 [0.05, 1.52]

Total events 1 11
Heterogeneity: 2 = 0.00; 2 = 0.26, df = 1 (P = 0.61); I2 = 0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.49 (P = 0.14)
Favours modified Starks Favours lower segment

E Interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn

Modified Starks Lower segment Mean diffrence Mean diffrence
Study or Subgroup Mean SD Total Mean SD Total Weight IV, Random, 95% CI IV, Random, 95% CI
Chen 2007 10.5 2.4 57 14.8 2.9 87 100.0% 4.30 [5.17, 3.43]

Total (95% CI) 57 87 100.0% 4.30 [5.17, 3.43]

Heterogeneity: Not applicable
100 50 0 50 100
Test for overall effect: Z = 9.67 (P < 0.00001)
Favours modified Starks Favours lower segment

Figure 4. Modified Starks caesarean section versus classic lower-segment caesarean section: (A) total adhesions; (B) grade 1 adhesions; (C) grade 2
adhesions; (D) grade 3 adhesions; (E) interval from skin incision to delivery of the newborn.

particularly when the enlarged uterus is in direct contact isolation function of the peritoneum to avoid direct contact
with the anterior abdominal wall when the peritoneum is of the above-mentioned tissues and so reduce adhesion for-
left open. In addition, women after caesarean section are mation.
encouraged to move as soon as possible, so the left-open Recently, one meta-analysis compared adhesions after
visceral peritoneum can no longer isolate omentum and closure or non-closure of the peritoneum during the previ-
intestines from the healing uterus, neither will the non- ous caesarean section based on three qualified RCTs.54
closed parietal peritoneum separate omentum and intes- From the summary of 249 qualifying women, the authors
tines from the fascia and rectus abdominis. In this case, concluded that closure of the peritoneum had the advan-
closure of the peritoneum might maintain the original tage of reduced adhesion formation. However, although the

2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 419
 Shi et al.
authors mentioned that the RCTs included had adhesion
scoring scales, they did not report adhesions according to
the degree of severity. Concerning multiple modifications
of techniques in caesarean section procedures, it is also not
sufficient to differentiate groups only by closure and non-
closure of the perineum, because other parameters like
longer abdominal operation time or pushing down of the
bladder from its attachment position on the uterus may
also contribute to adhesion formation. Our results comple-
mented and did not overlap with those of the published
meta-analysis. We addressed those problems by considering
various technique elements beyond closure versus non-clo-
sure of the peritoneum.
Interpretation of data
In the comparison between Starks caesarean section and
modified Starks caesarean section, which differs only in
closure or non-closure of the two layers of peritoneum,
there are significantly higher incidences of adhesion (both
in terms of total adhesions and individual grades of adhe-
sion) when the peritoneum was left open. The value of I2
in the grade 3 group was zero, indicating a more convinc-
ing advantage of modified Starks caesarean section over
Starks caesarean section in terms of severe adhesion for-
mation, with little heterogeneity.55
In comparisons of Starks caesarean section with lower-
segment caesarean section and modified Starks caesarean
section with lower-segment caesarean section, where the
two corresponding groups differ in more aspects and there-
fore lead to more variables, both the overall P values and
the I2 values were not supportive of significant and con-
vincing differences in adhesion formation (P > 0.05, and
I2 showing high heterogeneity). It was also shown that dif-
ferent severities of adhesion formation existed between
injury of visceral and injury of parietal peritoneum,56 so
studies comparing the closure of only the visceral perito-
neum with closure of only the parietal peritoneum were
not included to avoid further complexity. The same condi-
tion also applied to single-layer versus double-layer hyster-
otomy closure at primary caesarean delivery and bladder
adhesions.57 Although the heterogeneity in each sub-com-
parison remained relatively high, there was an apparent
trend suggesting that the less severe adhesions occurred
more often in the classic lower-segment caesarean section,
and the more severe adhesions occurred more often in the
Starks caesarean section. This phenomenon has an ana-
tomical basis. In Starks caesarean section, because the ori-
ginal barrier of peritoneum is not restored, adhesions may
involve the attachment of omentum to the abdominal wall
or uterus, intestines to uterus, or bladder to uterus, while
in classic lower-segment caesarean section, the peritoneum
barrier is restored so the adhesion only involves attachment
of bladder to uterus. In the latter case, the severity is
420 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
diminished because this kind of adhesion is restricted to a
smaller region.
In the comparison between modified caesarean section
and classic lower-segment caesarean section, data were less
persuasive because of the limited number of enrolled stud-
ies. Although there were many differences between these
two procedures, modified Starks caesarean section seems
to incur fewer adhesions than classic lower-segment caesar-
ean section.
Comparison subgroups for variables such as operation
time and blood loss were also considered. Although these
indices indirectly reflect the formation and severity of
adhesions, because of the limited number of studies avail-
able, the high heterogeneity in each subgroup, and the vari-
ous skill levels of the operators, these results should be
evaluated with caution.
Power of meta-analysis based on retrospective
observational studies
Generally, a RCT, which is the principal research design in
the evaluation of medical interventions, is a more qualified
and persuasive study methodology compared with retro-
spective observational study. However, meta-analysis based
on observational studies are not without merits.58 Such
importance becomes more prominent especially when it is
not possible or not convenient for RCTs to obtain data,
such as for long-term prognosis through long periods of
follow up accompanied by high drop-out rates, and limited
size and number of available RCTs.59 Specifically, checking
the formation of adhesions after previous caesarean section
requires the opening of the abdominal or pelvic cavity,
which can only be achieved during repeat operations.
No matter how well researchers design their prospective
studies, it is difficult to collect adhesion data unless assigning
each participant an extra, and usually unnecessary, operation
to confirm the formation of adhesions. Otherwise, the high
rate of drop-out in this kind of RCT renders the study no
more persuasive than the retrospective observational studies
without randomisation or blinding. Furthermore, although
scoring of adhesion might be influenced by individual
perception, physicians who scored adhesions did not foresee
the later retrospective study, and the formation of adhesions
was not influenced by expectations, stressors or actions of
the participating women. Both these advantages, which serve
to decrease bias, may outweigh the disadvantages of nonran-
domisation and nonblinding.
Influencing factors of this meta-analysis
Because of the high heterogeneity, we employed the Man-
telHaenszel random effect model for analysis.14 Most of
the included studies were carried out in China, probably
because small-scale retrospective observational studies are
less popular for publication. We searched only for studies

published in English or Chinese, which might also render a
selection bias. Both the adhesion scoring system and the
allocation of each woman into the corresponding group
were based on personal skills and views, hence there might
be possible bias based on personal judgment. As shown by
funnel plots, the estimated OR is probably biased in favour
of the Starks caesarean section or modified Starks caesar-
ean section because of publication bias. More RCTs of
higher quality and larger size are needed for further investi-
gations and more robust results.
Generally speaking, our meta-analysis provides strong
evidence that closure of both layers of peritoneum during
modified Starks caesarean section significantly reduces the
risk of adhesion formation, which might be beneficial to
women undergoing repeated abdominal operations and
encourage normal subsequent pregnancy.
Disclosure of interests
The authors have no conflict of interest, including financial
interests and relationships concerning this paper.
Contribution to authorship
ZS, LM and YY designed the study, performed analysis and
interpretation of data, and drafted part of the article; HW
and AS acquired data and drafted part of the article; XL and
ST acquired data and critically revised the study; XZ, JT, LZ,
WL, YA, NA and TC contributed to interpretation of the
data and made critical revisions; all authors approved the
final version to be published. ZS has full access to all the data
in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the
data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Details of ethics approval
No ethics approval is needed for this meta-analysis.
Funding
No funding source was involved. No competing interest is
to be declared.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Dr Allen Nicholson, Dr Mark Feitelson,
Dr James Bloxton (all from Temple University), Dr Patricia
Dillon (LaSalle University) and Mrs Carolyn Diehl (Ber-
wick Hospital Center) for their critical review and sugges-
tions. We also thank all the doctors and nurses in the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Third
Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University for their prac-
tical advice and cooperation.
Supporting information
The following supplementary materials are available for this
article:
2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Caesarean section techniques: under the cross-fire
Table S1. Characteristics of adhesion.
Table S2. Intervals in repeat caesarean sections.
Table S3. Blood loss during Repeat caesarean sections
(from skin incision to delivery of newborn, in millilitres).
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of this article.
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the
content or functionality of any supporting information
supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing
material) should be directed to the corresponding
author. j
References
1 Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepa-
nichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy out-
comes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal
health 200708. Lancet 2010;375:4909.
2 CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical tech-
niques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010;117:
136676.
3 Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah A, Novikova N. Techniques for
caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;23:CD004662.
4 Alpay Z, Saed GM, Diamond MP. Postoperative adhesions: from for-
mation to prevention. Semin Reprod Med 2008;26:31321.
5 Kim S, Lee S, Greene AK, Arsenault DA, Le H, Meisel J, et al. Inhibi-
tion of intra-abdominal adhesion formation with the angiogenesis
inhibitor sunitinib. J Surg Res 2008;149:1159.
6 Ray NF, Larsen JW, Stillman RJ, Jacobs RJ. Economic impact of hospi-
talizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in
1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:2716.
7 Holmgren G, Sjoholm L, Stark M. The Misgav Ladach method for
cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
1999;78:61521.
8 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D,
et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a pro-
posal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:200812.
9 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gtzsche PC, Van-
denbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observa-
tional Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for
reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:14537.
10 Hema KR, Johanson R. Techniques for performing caesarean section.
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15:1747.
11 Bristow RE, Montz FJ. Prevention of adhesion formation after radical
oophorectomy using a sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose
(HA-CMC) barrier. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99:3018.
12 AL-Took S, Platt R, Tulandi T. Adhesion-related small-bowel obstruc-
tion after gynecologic operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;80:
3135.
13 Myers SA, Bennett TL. Incidence of significant adhesions at repeat
cesarean section and the relationship to method of prior peritoneal
closure. J Reprod Med 2005;50:65962.
14 The Cochrane Collaboration open learning material. [www.cochrane-
net.org/openlearning/HTML/mod12-3.htm]. Last accessed 10 April
2010.
15 Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marn-Martnez F, Botella J.
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?
Psychol Methods 2006;11:193206.
16 Chen J, Chen X. Analysis of thirty cases repeat Starks caesarean
section. J Prac Med 2002;18:10901.
421
 Shi et al.
17 Ran C, Li N, Mu X. Analysis of abdominal adhesion after primary
Starks caesarean section. J Prac Obstet Gynecol 2004;20:276.
18 Cheng L. Clinical analysis of abdominal adhesion after Starks cesar-
ean section. J Sun Yat-sen Univ (Med Sci) 2005;26:2201.
19 Deng X. Clinical analysis of 133 cases of repeated caesarean section.
Guangxi Med J 2005;27:7289.
20 Hao C, Guo Z, Zhao C, Liu Y, Liu Z, Li S. Comparison of pelvic and
abdominal adhesion after different caesarean sections. Chin J Obstet
Gynecol 2005;40:7756.
21 Li H. Clinical analysis of 82 cases of repeated caesarean section.
Guangxi Med J 2005;27:10801.
22 Wang Z. Observation of abdominal adhesion after Starks cesarean
section. Matern Child Health Care China 2005;20:23556.
23 Yang A, Liang L. Influence of Starks caesarean section on repeat
caesarean section. Youjiang Med J 2005;33:334.
24 Yu Q. Analysis of abdominal adhesion after Starks caesarean sec-
tion. Matern Child Health Care China 2005;20:12212.
25 Ding X. Clinical observation of pelvic and abdominal adhesion after
Starks caesarean section. Chin Prac Med 2006;1:1123.
26 Hong J. Primary investigation into pelvic adhesion after Starks cae-
sarean section. Hainan Med J 2006;17:89, 71.
27 Lin S, Zhu L. Analysis of abdominal cavity adhesion after Starks cae-
sarean section. J Prac Med Tech 2006;13:957.
28 Luo R, Yan Q, Luo Z. The discussion of abdominal cavity adhesion in
new style cesarean section to the second cesarean section. J Gannan
Med Univ 2006;26:2402.
29 Niu X. Clinical observation of adhesion after Starks caesarean sec-
tion. Hainan Med J 2006;17:85.
30 Qu H, Chen Y. A clinical study of 238 cases of repeated cesarean
section. J Tongji Univ (Med Sci) 2006;27:679.
31 Tian H. Clinical observation of stark section as secondary abdominal
surgery. J Chin Modern Gynecol Obstet 2006;3:106971.
32 Xu Z. Clinical analysis of 188 cases of repeated cesarean section.
Chin J Prac Med 2006;5:7723.
33 Zhang L. Comparison of pelvic and abdominal adhesion at repeated
operation after different cesarean section. Modern J Integr Trad Chin
Western Med 2006;15:23278.
34 Chen Z, Liang M. Investigation into abdominal adhesion after three
methods of cesarean section. J Clin Med Pract 2007;11:8990.
35 Hamel KJ. Incidence of adhesions at repeat caesarean delivery. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:e312.
36 Huang D. Clinical analysis of 482 cases of repeated caesarean sec-
tion. Guangxi Med J 2007;29:15412.
37 Kang L, Yang L, Cai J. Clinical analysis of 136 cases of repeated
cesarean section. Henan J Surg 2007;13:812.
38 Liu A, Zhong Y. Analysis of pelvic adhesion after two methods of
cesarean section. Guangxi Med J 2007;29:119.
39 Wang B. Comparison of pelvic and abdominal adhesion after differ-
ent methods of cesarean section. J Commun Med 2007;5:745.
40 Wang Z, Li S. Comparison of abdominal adhesion after modified
and Starks section. Chin J Postgrad Med 2007;30:63.
41 Wang Q, Zhao M. Perioperative analysis of 90 cases of repeated cesar-
ean section. J Qiannan Med College Nationalities 2007;20:778.
422 2010 The Authors Journal compilation RCOG 2010 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
42 Zheng W, Xia Y, Wu H, Lu H. The new mode and midline incision
for caesarean section and abdomen cavity adhesions. Matern Child
Health Care China 2007;22:137981.
43 Chen J. Clinical analysis of 110 cases of repeated cesarean section.
IMHGN 2008;14:489.
44 Liang P, Jiao A, Liu S. Comparison of adhesion in abdominal cavity
after modified Starks section and Starks section. Shandong Med J
2008;48:93.
45 Nian Q. Clinical analysis of 113 cases with peritoneal adhesion after
cesarean section. Med Recapitulate 2008;14:78990.
46 Song Y. Clinical analysis of 119 cases of repeated cesarean section.
Chin J Prac Med 2008;35:601.
47 Wang R, Cao C. Clinical analysis of 42 cases of modified Starks sec-
tion. J Clin Experimental Med 2008;7:126.
48 Zhang J. Comparison of different abdominal and pelvic cavity
adhesion of cesarean sections. Chin J Trauma Disability Med 2009;
17:60.
49 Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Ellis H, OBrien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM.
The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years
after 8849 open gynecological operations: an assessment from
the Surgical and Clinical Adhesion Research Study. BJOG 2000;107:
85562.
50 Luijendijk RW, de Lange DC, Wauters CC, Hop WC, Duron JJ, Pailler
JL, et al. Foreign material in postoperative adhesions. Ann Surg
1996;223:2428.
51 Montz FJ, Shimanuki T, DeZerega GS. Postsurgical mesothelial
reepithelialization. In: DeCherney AG, Polan ML, editors. Reproductive
Surgery. Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publisher, 1987. pp. 3148.
52 Hubbard TB, Khan MZ, Carag VR, Albites VE, Hricko GM. The
pathology of peritoneal repair: its relation to the formation of adhe-
sions. Ann Surg 1967;165:90816.
53 Lyell DJ, Caughey AB, Hu E, Daniels K. Peritoneal closure at primary
caesarean delivery and adhesions. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:275
80.
54 Cheong YC, Premkumar G, Metwally M, Peacock JL, Li TC. To close
or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of perito-
neal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;47:38.
55 Song F, Sheldon TA, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Methods for
exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 2001;24:
12651.
56 Wallwiener D, Meyer A, Bastert G. Adhesion formation of the parie-
tal and visceral peritoneum: an explanation for the controversy on
the use of autologous and alloplastic barriers? Fertil Steril 1998;69:
1327.
57 Blumenfeld YJ, Caughey AB, El-Sayed YY, Daniels K, Lyell DJ. Single-
versus double-layer hysterotomy closure at primary caesarean deliv-
ery and bladder adhesions. BJOG 2010;117:6904.
58 Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:12158.
59 Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-
analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998;316:1404.