Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 53071

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : April | Volume : 6 | Issue : 2 | Page : 264 - 266

Post-Operative Analgesic requirement in Non-closure and Closure of Peritoneum during open Appendectomy- A Randomized controlled study

Basarkod Suresh, Ambi Uday S, Ganeshnavar Anilkumar, Emmi Shailesh, Lamani Y P

1.Corresponding Author, 2.Assistant Professor, Dept. Of Anaesthesiology, 3.Assistant Professor, Dept. Of Anaesthesiology, 4.Assistant Professor, Dept of Surgery, 5.Assistant Professor, Dept of Surgery, SN Medical College and HSK Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, 587102, India

Correspondence Address :
Basarkod Suresh,
Associate Professor, Department of Surgery,
SN Medical College and HSK Hospital, Bagalkot,
Karnataka -587102, India.
Phone: 918354-235400
E-mail: sureshbasarkod@gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the post-operative analgesic requirement of non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at open appendectomy as compared to suture peritonization.

Design: A randomized double-blind controlled trail was performed on 100 patients who underwent open appendectomy.

Main outcome measures: Post-operative pain scores as assessed by visual analogue scale and analgesic requirement.

Results: Pain scores at 24 hours were less in non-closure than closure group and analgesic requirement was significantly lesser in non-closure than closure group after 24 hours.

Conclusion: In conclusion, not suturing the peritoneum at the appendectomy has beneficial effects on post-operative pain and we also emphasise the absence of short term morbidity when peritoneum is not closed. Therefore we recommend the non-closure of peritoneum at appendectomy.

Keywords

Peritoneal closure, appendectomy,

Introdution
It is conventional to suture all the layers that are cut during surgery. This is indeed what every surgeon is taught and every surgeon is practicing. The fear of increased adhesions following the non-closure of peritoneum has been disapproved by many studies (1),(2). Much of the experience on non- closure of peritoneum in the literature comes from obstetric and gynaecological surgeries. The effect of post-operative pain remains a controversial issue (3). To the best of our knowledge, no study in general surgery was specifically designed to assess the post- operative pain and analgesic requirement. Our hypothesis is that – peritoneum has rich nerve supply and poor blood supply. Closure of peritoneum results in more pain because of ischaemia produced by suturing. To test our hypothesis we took up this randomized, double blind controlled study to know the effect of non-closure of peritoneum at appendectomy on post- operative pain and analgesic requirement.

Material and Methods

After obtaining the approval from institutional ethical committee, a double-blind randomized, prospective trail comparing the effect of closure or non-closure of peritoneum on post-operative pain following open appendectomy was taken up. This study was carried out in the Department of Surgery, S Nijalingappa Medical College, Bagalkot, India from June 2010 to May 2011. One hundred patients undergoing emergency or elective Open appendectomy with proven ultrasonographic findings were recruited for the study. Exclusion criteria were Children below 12-years, Neurotic\psychiatric patients, complicated appendicitis, patients who were operated under anaesthesia other than spinal anaesthesia. Intra-operatively patients who had additional pathology, who underwent additional procedure and patients who developed wound infection were also excluded. After detailed history, examination and investigations, informedSectionwritten consent was obtained from each patient for participation in the study. By using computer generated random numbers, with the use of opaque sealed envelopes, the patients were randomly allocated to one of the two groups, closure (control) or nonclosure (subject) group. Both control and study group were matched in all aspects except for peritoneal closure or non-closure. The randomization sequence into closure and non-closure group was generated by computer generated number instructing the surgeon to open or close the peritoneum. The information was enclosed in sealed envelope. Envelopes were opened prior to the surgery before surgeon and the surgeon was asked to follow the instruction enclosed in the envelope, regarding closure or non-closure of peritoneum.

The patients enrolled for the study underwent open appendectomy under spinal anaesthesia. Mc Burney’s incision was employed in all the cases. Per-operative findings on opening the abdomen were noted. Patients with complications, additional pathology and who underwent additional procedure were excluded. After removing the appendix the peritoneum was closed or left open based on the instruction enclosed in the envelope. Rest of the layers was closed as in routine. The time when surgery ended was taken was “0” hour and the day of surgery was taken as “0” day. Post-operatively pain was recorded using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), on day 0, day 1 and day 2. Analgesics were administered when VAS is more than 40mm on the scale. The analgesic requirement was recorded. Patients were watched for wound infection.

Results

Among the 100 patients enrolled in the study, 47 subjects had non-closure, while 47 controls had closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum at open appendectomy. Mean age, sex, anesthesia data, were comparable in both the groups (Table/Fig 1). The averageduration of operation was less by 6 minutes in the non- closure group. Three patients in each group were excluded from the study due to associated complications and additional pathology. The visual analogue score data is shown in (Table/Fig 2). Mean total pain score in the, non–closure group was less as compared to that in controls. Patients in the non-closure group requiring parenteral analgesics was significantly less than that in the control group (Table/Fig 3).

Discussion

Closure of peritoneum at Laparotomy has been a standard practice. Leaving the peritoneum open does not have any untoward effect, but has several advantages, which is supported by clinical and animal data. The advantages include reduced operative time, lower intra -abdominal adhesions, lower operative morbidity and early discharge from hospital (3),(4),(5). The effect of non-closure of peritoneum on post-operative pain remains an issue of debate. Some studies have documented the reduction of post operative pain, while some studies did not, when peritoneum was not closed (4),(6). Only few studies were specifically designed to study post-operative pain (4),(6). We wanted to study the effect of non-closure of peritoneum on post-operative pain and analgesic requirements at open appendectomy, a commonly performed surgery even in the era of laparoscopy.

In our study post-operative VAS were significantly less in non-closure group than the closure group. Post-operative analgesic requirement was less in non-closure group as compared to the closure group. Our results are comparable to a RCT by E. S.Hajsedvadi and F Rasekh (7) in which 160 pregnant women underwent caesarean section. In the non-closure group the analgesic requirement was 90.8 mg of diclofenac and 1.16 capsule of mephenemic acid whereas in the closure group it was 112.9mg of diclofenac and two capsules of diclofenac and two capsules of mephenemic acid. The mean VAS in closure group and non-closure group were 5.5 and 4.24 respectively. The difference between two groups was statistically significant. Similar findings are in conformity with the study by Ghongdemath JS (8).

In contrarily to our findings in study done by Z. Rafique et al (9) and Demirel Y et al (10) there was no overall difference in visual analogue scale between the two groups. But there was a tendency of lower pain scores in the non-closure group. In this study visual analogue scale/verbal rating scale scores were administered by the attending midwives and there were a number of missing values in the data as patients were not disturbed if they were sleeping in order to complete the data sheet. Significantly higher demand for morphine during 24-hour post-operative period (closure group 0.82mg/kg closure group vs 0.64mg/kg non-closure group) substantiates that closure group suffered more pain. Though there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the use of oral analgesia but a trend could be seen that the non-closure group used less oral analgesia. Xiong et al (11) in their study revealed that closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue provides no immediate post-operative benefits while unnecessarily lengthening surgical time and anesthesia exposure. The practice of closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue at radical hysterectomy should be questioned.

Hull et al.(12) in a study of 113 women and Nagele et al. (4) in a randomized trial of 549 women, reported less use of post-operative analgesia when the peritoneum was not sutured at caesarean section, but in both of these studies pain was not the primary outcome measure. Furthermore the anaesthetic technique was not standardized: some patients received general anesthesia and others either epidural or spinal with or without neuroaxial opioids. In both these studies importance was given to the number of doses rather than the actual amount used and post-operatively pain was not assessed. Similar criticism can be applied to a study by Irion et al.(13) which found no difference in the number of analgesic doses required post-operatively in their study of 280 patients. The CORONIS Trial (14) suggests that non-closure of the peritoneum may carry some short-term advantages, including a lower risk of post-operative infection, shorter operating time and shorter hospital stay. Again, however, the studies identified were small and the methodology was not always strong.

To test our hypothesis properly we attempted to standardize procedures as much as possible including anaesthesia technique and surgical procedure. The study and control group were similar in all aspects except peritoneal closure. We have not used patient controlled analgesia as it was not available in our institute at the time of study which remains as limitation. In conclusion, not suturing the peritoneum at the appendectomy has beneficial effects on post operative pain and we also emphasise the absence of short term morbidity when peritoneum is not closed. Therefore we recommend non-closure of peritoneum at appendectomy.

Conclusion

(1) Duffy DM, diZerega GS. Is peritoneal closure necessary? Obstet Gynaecol Surv 1994;49:817-22. (2) Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Non-closure of peritoneal surfaces at caesarean section- a systematic review. South African Medical Journal 2005; 95:123-6. (3) Cheong Y, Bajekal N, Li T. Peritoneal closure- to close or not to close. Human Reproduction 2001; 16:1548-52. (4) Nagale F, Karas H, Spitzer D, Karasegh S, Beck A, Husslein P. Closure or nonclosure of the peritoneum at caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;174:1366-70. (5) Kapur ML, Daneswar A, Chopra P. Evaluation of peritoneal closure at laparotomy. Am J Surg 1979;137:650-2. (6) Hugh TB, Nankivel C, Meagher AP, Li B. Is closure of the peritoneal layer necessary in the repair of midline surgical abdominal wounds? World J Surg1990;14:233-4. (7) Hajsedvadi ES, Rasekh F. Post-caesarean pain in closure versus nonclosure of parietal peritoneum. The Journal of Qazvin Univ. of Med. Sci 2006;10:45-8. (8) Ghongdemath JS, Banale SB. A randomized study comparing Noclosure and closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum during cesarean section. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 2011;2:48-52. (9) Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russel IF, Lindow Sw. A randomized controlled trial of the closure or non- closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post operative pain. BJOG 2002;109:694-8. (10) Demirel Y, Gursoy S, Duran B, Erden O, Cetin M, Balta O, et al. Closure or non closure of the peritoneum at gynaecological operations. Effect on post-operative pain. Saudi Med J 2005 ;26:964-8. (11) Xiong Z,Dong W, Wang Z. Non-closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue at radical hysterectomy: A Randomized controlled trial. Front Med China 2010; 4: 112-6. (12) Hull DB, Varner MW. A randomized study of closure of the peritoneum at caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynaecol 1991;77:818-21. (13) Irion O, Luzuy F, Benguin F. Non closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at caesarean section: Randomized control trail. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103:690-94. (14) CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group. The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2007;7:24.

References

1.
Duffy DM, diZerega GS. Is peritoneal closure necessary? ObstetGynaecol Surv 1994;49:817-22.
2.
Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Non-closure of peritoneal surfaces at caesarean section- a systematic review. South African Medical Journal 2005; 95:123-6.
3.
Cheong Y, Bajekal N, Li T. Peritoneal closure- to close or not to close. Human Reproduction 2001; 16:1548-52.
4.
Nagale F, Karas H, Spitzer D, Karasegh S, Beck A, Husslein P. Closure or nonclosure of the peritoneum at caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;174:1366-70.
5.
Kapur ML, Daneswar A, Chopra P. Evaluation of peritoneal closure at laparotomy. Am J Surg 1979;137:650-2.
6.
Hugh TB, Nankivel C, Meagher AP, Li B. Is closure of the peritoneal layer necessary in the repair of midline surgical abdominal wounds? World J Surg1990;14:233-4.
7.
Hajsedvadi ES, Rasekh F. Post-caesarean pain in closure versus nonclosure of parietal peritoneum. The Journal of Qazvin Univ. of Med. Sci 2006;10:45-8.
8.
Ghongdemath JS, Banale SB. A randomized study comparing No-closure and closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum during cesarean section. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 2011;2:48-52.
9.
Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russel IF, Lindow Sw. A randomized controlled trial of the closure or non- closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post operative pain. BJOG 2002;109:694-8.
10.
Demirel Y, Gursoy S, Duran B, Erden O, Cetin M, Balta O, et al. Closure or non closure of the peritoneum at gynaecological operations. Effect on post-operative pain. Saudi Med J 2005 ;26:964-8.
11.
Xiong Z,Dong W, Wang Z. Non-closure of the peritoneum and subcutaneous tissue at radical hysterectomy: A Randomized controlled trial. Front Med China 2010; 4: 112-6.
12.
Hull DB, Varner MW. A randomized study of closure of the peritoneum at caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynaecol 1991;77:818-21.
13.
Irion O, Luzuy F, Benguin F. Non closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at caesarean section: Randomized control trail. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103:690-94.
14.
CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group. The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2007;7:24.

DOI and Others

DOI: JCDR/2012/4001:2008

Financial OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS:
None.


Date Of Submission: Nov 11, 2011
Date Of Peer Review: Dec 06, 2011
Date Of Acceptance: Dec 22, 2011
Date Of Publishing: Apr 15, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com