Research

The peritoneum at laparotomy: A survey of gynaecological practice among Nigerian gynaecologists

A A Bamigboye, F O Okonfua

Abstract


Background. The debate on the benefit of leaving the peritoneum unsutured is ongoing among gynaecologists. There is yet to be a final decision on this surgical step, especially considering the long-term complications of adhesion formation, subfertility and chronic pelvic pain.

Objectives. The objective of the study is to determine the attitudes of Nigerian gynaecologists toward the peritoneum during laparotomy for both benign conditions and caesarean sections.

Methods. The survey was conducted during the 50th International Conference of Gynaecologists hosted by the Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of Nigeria in October 2015. A questionnaire was distributed to attending participants across the board regarding peritoneal closure at laparotomy. A total of 125 respondents completed the survey. Data were entered into SSPA statistical software for analysis.

Results. The attitude towards the peritoneum was not associated with the year of experience as a gynaecologist. The reasons for the decision not to close the peritoneum was mostly based on the little evidence there is as regards the benefits.

Conclusion. The attitude towards the peritoneum during gynaecological procedures amongst Nigerian specialists appears to be in congruity with international practices where there is no clear-cut preference on the status of the peritoneum. However, the younger specialists gravitate towards non-closure.


Authors' affiliations

A A Bamigboye, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, University of Medical Sciences, Ondo, Nigeria; School of Clinical Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

F O Okonfua, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, University of Medical Sciences, Ondo, Nigeria

Full Text

PDF (76KB)

Keywords

peritoneum; laparatomy; caesarean section

Cite this article

South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2017;23(2):48. DOI:10.7196/sajog.1131

Article History

Date submitted: 2016-10-25
Date published: 2017-09-01

Article Views

Abstract views: 4521
Full text views: 276

Comments on this article

*Read our policy for posting comments here
View all comments