Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025
External Cephalic Version: Is it an Effective and Safe Procedure?
Published on: June 6, 2020
Comparison between the modified French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section and standard cesarean technique-a randomized
Shlomi Sagi1, Inna Bleicher2, Rabia Bakhous2
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel (MD Sagi, MD Bleicher, MD Bakhous, MD Pelts, MD Talhamy, Caspin, and MD Sammour); The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel (MD Sagi and MD Sagi-Dain).
Background:
The French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section is a cesarean delivery technique, which includes a vertical fascial incision to the left of the linea alba and an extraperitoneal approach to the uterus. The presumed benefits of this technique are decreased postoperative pain and accelerated recovery. However, evidence supporting these impressions is scarce.
Objective:
This study aimed to compare maternal recovery after French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section vs standard cesarean delivery technique.
Study Design:
In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, women undergoing elective cesarean delivery at term were allocated into French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section vs standard cesarean delivery technique. A modified French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section technique was used, adhering to all French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section operative steps except for the extraperitoneal approach. In both groups, the use of intravenous hydration, intrathecal morphine, and bladder catheter was avoided, and all women were encouraged to stand and walk 3 to 4 hours after the operation. The primary adverse composite outcome included either of the following: a visual analog scale score of >6 at 3 to 4 hours after the operation, an inability to stand up and walk to the restroom 3 to 4 hours after the operation, and a 15-Item Quality of Recovery (QoR) questionnaire score of <90 at 24 hours after the operation. The women were followed up for 6 weeks.
Results:
Overall, 116 women were included in the trial (58 in each group). The adverse composite outcome did not differ between the 2 groups (38.9% for the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group vs 53.8% for the regular cesarean delivery group; P=.172). In both groups, more than 90% of the women were able to get up and walk 3 to 4 hours after the operation. Compared with the standard cesarean delivery group, the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group had a longer duration of the operation (43.7±11.2 vs 54.4±11.3 minutes; P<.001), a higher rate of intraoperative complications (0.0% vs 13.8%; P=.006), and a higher rate of umbilical cord pH level of <7.2 (3.4% vs 17.2%; P=.029) were noted. Evaluation via phone call 1 week after the operation showed better quality of recovery scores in the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section group than in the standard cesarean delivery group (27.1±8.4 vs 24.6±8.0; P=.043). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.
Conclusion:
As excellent maternal recovery was noted in both groups, we believe that the main factor affecting this recovery is the perioperative management (including avoidance of the use of intraoperative intravenous hydration, intrathecal morphine, and bladder catheter, with early postoperative mobilization). The maternal and neonatal safety outcomes of the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section technique remain to be proven by larger-scale high-quality randomized controlled trials.
