Abstract
Abdominal incision complications are a major source of morbidity after caesarean delivery. Repair of the superficial fascial system may avert local complications after caesarean delivery by minimising tension to the skin and increasing the initial biomechanical strength of wound which has the potential to decrease early wound dehiscence and as a by-product correct suprapubic bulging.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Abdominal incision complications are a major source of morbidity after caesarean delivery [1, 2]. They also create significant emotional and economic burdens in obstetric care. The postpartum period is a challenging time for women and a postoperative wound complication further intensifies an already difficult period of adjustment. The economic burden is difficult to quantify but is likely significant.
Several useful transverse abdominal incisions are available to the surgeons performing obstetric and gynaecologic surgery. Historically, the obstetrician–gynaecologist has preferred this type of incision including Pfannenstiel’s incision.
Failure of the skin incision to heal commonly occurs because of infection, abscess, haematoma formation, seroma formation [1–13]. The incidence of wound complications in the obstetric population varies in the literature, with rates ranging from 2.8 to 26.6% [1–13]. These wound complications and others such as suprapubic ptosis and suprapubic scar depression with soft tissue bulging, remain a major concern for women undergoing caesarean delivery [1, 2].
Abdominoplasty has evolved as a very effective body contouring procedure [14, 15]. These complex procedures, which were designed for moderate to severe skin laxity of the trunk and for patients with lax inguinal and upper thigh tissues, produce dramatic improvements in skin tightness and more natural aesthetic contours [14, 15]. Could the application of an abdominoplasty concept reduce local complications after caesarean delivery?
Superficial fascial system
Classical abdominoplasty, including repair of musculofascial flaccidity primarily treats the anterior abdominal wall [15]. The superficial fascial system (SFS) is the connective tissue network that resides below the dermis and provides the major structural support for the skin and fat of the body (Fig. 1) [16]. The SFS is a viscoelastic layer in possession of functional biomechanical properties [17]. The SFS provides the major structural support for the skin and fat of the body and repair of the SFS would be expected to diffuse the tension on the skin flap, lift areas of soft tissue ptosis, and provide long-lasting support [18].
Its description and surgical application has made a significant contribution to body contouring surgery. Lockwood popularised its use in various suspension procedures designed to improve body contour which include the lower body lift and the high lateral tension abdominoplasty [19–21]. It has been implicated as a pivotal structure in excisional [16, 19, 20, 22–24] and noninvasive [25, 26] body contouring procedures. Surgical repair of the SFS increases biomechanical strength of the surgical wound [17]. Lockwood also suggested that repair of the SFS results in a stable scar that heals without migration [16]. It has been claimed that SFS repair more effectively closes dead space, and, therefore, has the potential to reduce seroma formation [18] and decrease scar width, although this has not previously been quantified [16].
Observations verify what Lockwood and others have described to be the biomechanical role of SFS [17, 19, 20, 23–25, 27]. Repair of the SFS transfers tension from the dermis to the deeper tissues, minimising tension to the skin flap [17]. This biomechanical energy transfer is enhanced by the dermis-SFS junctional architecture (Fig. 2) [17]. The continuity of the dermis to the SFS ensures a direct energy transfer, and the oblique and vertical orientation of the SFS septae disperses the energy in a direction perpendicular to the wound tension [17]. A recent study demonstrated that repair of the SFS layer in addition to dermis repair significantly increases the initial biomechanical strength of wound repair early postoperative period, and is likely to be a strength layer even in the later stages of wound healing [17]. This has the potential to decrease early wound dehiscence [17]. This suggests the possibility of enhanced long-term tensile strength [17]. Tight closure of the SFS layer in addition to dermis of the abdomen corrects suprapubic bulging and creates a flatter stomach [17, 18]. Lockwood repaired the SFS with 2-0 polydioxanone (PDS) suture (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ), the deep dermis in interrupted fashion using 3-0 poliglecaprone 25 (monocryl) (Ethicon) followed by an intracuticular repair using 3-0 monocryl as well [16].
Discussion
Primary complications of Pfannenstiel incisions include, haematoma, seroma, epigastric bulging, and wound necrosis. The SFS provides the major structural support for the skin and fat of the body [16, 17]. Its description and surgical application has made a significant contribution to body contouring surgery [14, 15, 17]. We suggest that repair of the SFS may avert local complications after caesarean delivery by minimising tension to the skin and increasing the initial biomechanical strength of wound which has the potential to decrease early wound dehiscence and as a by-product correct supra-pubic bulging.
References
Vermillion ST, Lamoutte C, Soper DE et al (2000) Wound infection after cesarean: effect of subcutaneous tissue thickness. Obstet Gynecol 95:923–926. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00642-0
Owen J, Andrews WW (1994) Wound complications after cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 37:842–855. doi:10.1097/00003081-199412000-00009
Myles TD, Gooch J, Santolaya J (2002) Obesity as an independent risk factor for infectious morbidity in patients who undergo cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 100:959–964. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02323-2
Naumann RW, Hauth JC, Owen J et al (1995) Subcutaneous tissue approximation in relation to wound disruption after cesarean delivery in obese women. Obstet Gynecol 85:412–416. doi:10.1016/0029-7844(94)00427-F
Chelmow D, Huang E, Strohbehn K (2002) Closure of the subcutaneous dead space and wound disruption after cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 11:403–408. doi:10.1080/713605560
Manann EF, Chauhan SP, Rodts-Palenik S et al (2002) Subcutaneous stitch closure versus subcutaneous drain to prevent wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1119–1123. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.123823
Martens MG, Kolrud BL, Faro S et al (1995) Development of wound infection or separation after cesarean delivery; prospective evaluation of 2, 431 cases. J Reprod Med 40:171–175
Tran TS, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V et al (2000) Risk factors for post cesarean surgical site infection. Obstet Gynecol 95:367–371. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00540-2
Cetin A, Cetin M (1997) Superficial wound disruption after cesarean delivery: effect of depth and closure of subcutaneous tissue. Int J Gynecol Obstet 57:17–21. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(97)02836-1
Killian CA, Graffunder EM, Vinciguerra TJ et al (2001) Risk factors for surgical-site infections following cesarean section. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 22:613–617. doi:10.1086/501831
Pelle H, Jepsen O, Larsen S et al (1986) Wound infection after cesarean section. Infect Control 7:456–461
Moir-Bussy BR, Hutton RM, Thompson JR (1984) Wound infection after caesarean section. J Hosp Infect 5:359–370. doi:10.1016/0195-6701(84)90003-3
Roberts S, Maccato M, Faro S et al (1993) The microbiology of post-cesarean wound morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 81:383–386
Mallucci P, Pacifico MD, Waterhouse N, Sabbagh W (2007) The differential fascial glide: a technical refinement in abdominoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60(8):929–933. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.10.019
Teimourian B, Gotkin RH (1989) Contouring of the midtrunk in overweight patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 13:145–153. doi:10.1007/BF01570211
Lockwood TE (1991) Superficial fascial system (SFS) of the trunk and extremities: a new concept. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1009–1018
Song AY, Askari M, Azemi E, Alber S, Hurwitz DJ, Marra KG et al (2006) Biomechanical properties of the superficial fascial system. Aesthetic Surg J 26:395–403. doi:10.1016/j.asj.2006.05.005
Pollock T, Pollock H (2004) Progressive tension sutures in abdominoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 31:583–589. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2004.03.015
Lockwood TE (1993) Lower body lift with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:1112–1122
Lockwood TE (1995) High-lateral-tension abdominoplasty with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:603–615
Lockwood TE (2004) Maximizing aesthetics in lateral-tension abdominoplasty and body lifts. Clin Plast Surg 31:523–537. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2004.04.001
Lockwood TE (1988) Fascial anchoring technique in medial thigh lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 82:299–304. doi:10.1097/00006534-198808000-00015
Lockwood TE (1995) Brachioplasty with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:912–920
Lockwood TE (1999) Reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:1411–1420. doi:10.1097/00006534-199904050-00009
Markman B, Barton F Jr (1987) Anatomy of the subcutaneous tissue of the trunk and lower extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 80:248–254. doi:10.1097/00006534-198708000-00015
Rohrich RJ, Smith PD, Marcantonio DR, Kenkel JM (2001) The zones of adherence: role in minimizing and preventing contour deformities in liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1562–1569. doi:10.1097/00006534-200105000-00043
Edwards C, Marks R (1995) Evaluation of biomechanical properties of human skin. Clin Dermatol 13:375–380. doi:10.1016/0738-081X(95)00078-T
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Al-Benna, S., Al-Ajam, Y. & Tzakas, E. Superficial fascial system repair: an abdominoplasty technique to reduce local complications after caesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279, 673–675 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0802-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0802-5