Study on Comparison between Traditional Technique of Cesarean Section and FAST: Finger Assisted Stretching Technique / 대한산부인과학회잡지

ABSTRACT

The cesarean section has been considered as one of the most prime and most commonly performed operations in the obstetrics and gynecology field. In fact, all cesarean sections have depended upon the operator`s experience. However, there have been several cases reported on new technique of cesarean section in many developed countries, but not in Korea until we started the recent research. We have developed a new type of cesarean section named FAST(Finger Assisted Stretching Technique) through study on strength/weakness of other operation techniques as well as many other researches we conducted in the past plus our own experiences. To find the differences on the following subjects; operating time, postoperative complication, and recovery period. We compared and analyzed data from using new and traditional techniques. We selected 120 patients(group A using FAST 45 patients, group B using traditional technique 75 patients) as samples for this study. Together, they were all conducted cesarean section at Korea University, Guro Hospital between May 1993 and December 1995. Student-t-test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. We consider that below 0.05 for P value is statistically significant. The results of comparative study between two groups are; 1. There was no comparative difference on average age group A 29.6(range 23~39, S/D 7.1) group B 31.1(range 24~38, S/D 5.4) 2. There was a significant difference on average operation times group A 15.4 min.(range 11~19, S/D 3.6) group B 41.3 min.(range 23~50, S/D 19) 3. There was a significant difference on average amount of bleeding group A 580 ml(range 450~750, S/D 101) group B 916 ml(range 800~1000, S/D 99) 4. There was a significant difference on the value of hemoglobin before and after operation group A 0.8 g/dl(range 0.4~1.6, S/D 0.25) group B 1.9 g/dl(range 0.9~2.6, S/D 0.21) 5. There was a significant difference on average period of hospitalization group A 3.7 days(range 3~4, S/D 0.7) group B 6.4 days(range 5~8, S/D 0.6) 6. No one from group A experienced any infection, but 3 cases of wound infection and 2 cases of voiding difficulty were reported from group B. 7. 11 cases from group A and 16 cases from group B had laparotomy for some other reasons, later. There was no adhesion found in group A, but adhesions found in 2 cases from group B.