<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0256-9574</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[SAMJ: South African Medical Journal]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[SAMJ, S. Afr. med. j.]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0256-9574</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Health and Medical Publishing Group]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0256-95742012000600024</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[A randomised controlled trial of suture materials used for caesarean section skin closure: Do wound infection rates differ?]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chunder]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Devjee]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A02"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Khedun]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S M]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A03"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Moodley]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A04"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Esterhuizen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A05"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="A01">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of KwaZulu-Natal Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Durban ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="A02">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of KwaZulu-Natal Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Durban ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="A03">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of KwaZulu-Natal Women's Health and HIV Research Group ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="A04">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of KwaZulu-Natal Women's Health and HIV Research Group ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<aff id="A05">
<institution><![CDATA[,University of KwaZulu-Natal Women's Health and HIV Research Group ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>102</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<fpage>374</fpage>
<lpage>383</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0256-95742012000600024&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0256-95742012000600024&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0256-95742012000600024&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine wound complication rates following the use of suture materials and staples for skin closure at caesarean section (CS). STUDY DESIGN: A randomised, controlled, prospective study was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 1 100 women was assigned randomly into 3 groups: polyglycolic acid (PGA) suture group (N=361), skin staple (SS) group (N=373) and nylon suture group (N=366). The overall wound infection rate was 7%. There was no difference in respect of number of patients, age, parity and gestation between the study groups. Those who had nylon sutures as opposed to PGA sutures were 9.5 times more likely to experience wound infection (p=0.055). Women who had SS were at 6.93 times higher risk of wound infection than those who had PGA sutures (p=0.014). Other factors influencing wound infection rates included: rupture of membranes >12 hours were 13.7 times (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9 - 47.9, p<0.0001) more likely to have wound infection than those with rupture of membranes <12 hours. For every 1-minute increase of surgery duration, the risk of infection increased 1.094 times (95% CI 1.046 - 1.145; p<0.0001). HIV-infected women were 53.4% less likely to develop wound infection than their uninfected counterparts (odds ratio 0.466, 95% CI 0.238 - 0.913; p=0.026). As the time period of observation increased from baseline to day 3 and from day 3 to day 10, wound infection risk increased by 35 times (95% CI 8.155 - 150.868; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of SS for CS wound closure is associated with a significantly greater risk of wound infections. SS for wound closure at CS is not recommended for use in South African district hospitals.]]></p></abstract>
</article-meta>
</front><body><![CDATA[ <p align="right"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>RESEARCH</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b><a name="top"></a>A    randomised controlled trial of suture materials used for caesarean section skin    closure: Do wound infection rates differ?</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>A Chunder<sup>I</sup>;    J Devjee<sup>II</sup>; S M Khedun<sup>III</sup>, J Moodley<sup>IV</sup>; T Esterhuizen<sup>V</sup></b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><sup>I</sup>MB    BS, Dip O&amp;G (SA). Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Addington Hospital,    and Women's Health and HIV Research Group, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban    <br>   <sup>II</sup>MB ChB, Dip O&amp;G. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,    Addington Hospital, and Women's Health and HIV Research Group, University of    KwaZulu-Natal, Durban    <br>   <sup>III</sup>MMed. Women's Health and HIV Research Group, Nelson R Mandela    School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal S    <br>   <sup>IV</sup>MB ChB, FCOG, FRCOG, MD. Women's Health and HIV Research Group,    Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal S    ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<br>   <sup>V</sup>MSc. Women's Health and HIV Research Group, Nelson R Mandela School    of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal S</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>RESUMO</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>OBJECTIVE:</b>    The aim of this study was to determine wound complication rates following the    use of suture materials and staples for skin closure at caesarean section (CS).    <br>   <b>STUDY DESIGN:</b> A randomised, controlled, prospective study was undertaken.    <br>   <b>RESULTS:</b> A total of 1 100 women was assigned randomly into 3 groups:    polyglycolic acid (PGA) suture group (N=361), skin staple (SS) group (N=373)    and nylon suture group (N=366). The overall wound infection rate was 7%. There    was no difference in respect of number of patients, age, parity and gestation    between the study groups. Those who had nylon sutures as opposed to PGA sutures    were 9.5 times more likely to experience wound infection (p=0.055). Women who    had SS were at 6.93 times higher risk of wound infection than those who had    PGA sutures (p=0.014). Other factors influencing wound infection rates included:    rupture of membranes &gt;12 hours were 13.7 times (95% confidence interval (CI)    3.9 - 47.9, p&lt;0.0001) more likely to have wound infection than those with    rupture of membranes &lt;12 hours. For every 1-minute increase of surgery duration,    the risk of infection increased 1.094 times (95% CI 1.046 - 1.145; p&lt;0.0001).    HIV-infected women were 53.4% less likely to develop wound infection than their    uninfected counterparts (odds ratio 0.466, 95% CI 0.238 - 0.913; p=0.026). As    the time period of observation increased from baseline to day 3 and from day    3 to day 10, wound infection risk increased by 35 times (95% CI 8.155 - 150.868;    p&lt;0.001).    <br>   <b>CONCLUSION:</b> The use of SS for CS wound closure is associated with a significantly    greater risk of wound infections. SS for wound closure at CS is not recommended    for use in South African district hospitals.</font></p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A variety of suture    materials and skin staples (SS) are used for skin closure after caesarean section    (CS). Some of these suture materials have been associated with lower wound infection    rates, reduced pain, improved cosmetic outcomes and cost-effectiveness.<sup>1</sup>    On the other hand, SS are easier to use and are associated with a three- to    fourfold reduction in time for skin closure at similar rates of wound infection.<sup>2</sup>    However, they are more expensive than suture materials and it is reported that    SS are more painful and result in a poorer cosmetic appearance.<sup>3</sup></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Most studies on    suture materials and SS for skin closure following CS are limited to cosmetic    aspects, patient satisfaction and postoperative pain relief,<sup>4-6</sup> with    conflicting outcomes. Furthermore, these studies were done in high-income countries.    In middle- and low-income countries, such as South Africa, where infection rates    associated with pregnancy are high and most CS are done for prolonged labour    and/ or cephalopelvic disproportion, there is no standard material for skin    wound closure at CS. We observed that currently polyglycolic acid (PGA), nylon    sutures and SS are used for wound closure following CS, with surgeon preference    guiding the choice.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A Cochrane review    concluded that there were insufficient data to recommend any technique or materials    for CS wound closure.<sup>7</sup> We therefore planned to determine whether    there is any difference in the frequency of wound complications with two suture    materials (PGA and nylon) and SS used for skin closure at CS.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Methods</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A randomised prospective    clinical trial was conducted from August 2009 until May 2010 at a district hospital    in South Africa, after institutional ethical permission had been granted. All    women undergoing CS were given the opportunity to participate and were excluded    if they declined.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A computer-generated    randomisation sequence with sealed envelopes randomly assigned women to 3 groups    <i>(i)</i> PGA sutures, ( <i>ii)</i> SS and ( <i>iii)</i> nylon sutures. Given    that the incidence of wound complication ranges between 5% and 10% worldwide,    1 620 patients (540 in each group) were scheduled to be studied. An interim    analysis was not planned but was done because patients in the SS group complained    of severe discomfort at the time of removal of the SS and it was felt that it    was unethical to proceed with the study. The interim analysis was therefore    carried out following the recruitment of 1 100 patients.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The CS technique    was standardised except for the materials used for wound closure, which were    allocated according to the randomised sequence. All CS were carried out by medical    officers or interns under supervision. All patients had a Pfannenstiel incision    and all skin sutures were inserted subcutaneously: PGA (absorbable), straight    needle size 2/0, continuous suture (Ethicon); nylon (non-absorbable) monofilament,    curved needle size 2-0, interrupted sutures (Clinisut); and staples (interrupted    placement) (Smith &amp; Nephew)). Prior to CS, the surgeon opened the sealed    opaque envelope next in sequential order to identify the closure material.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Intravenous prophylactic    antibiotics were given following clamping of the umbilical cord after both emergency    and elective CS. HIV-infected patients received a 3-day course of therapeutic    antibiotics (gentamicin 400 mg daily and Augmentin 1.2 g 3 times a day). Patients    who had premature or prolonged rupture of membranes were also given therapeutic    antibiotics. Demographic and delivery data were obtained prospectively from    the medical records. The body mass index (BMI) of patients was not calculated    because this hospital did not routinely measure height.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The surgical wounds    were assessed by medical officers on day 1 and day 3 after CS and on day 10    at an outpatient clinic to assess the presence of wound infection. Wound infection    was classified as follows: clean, healed wound; superficial (serous or serosanguinous    discharge with or without breakdown of skin; deep (breakdown of skin and exposure    of sheath); wound dehiscence (breakdown of sheath but peritoneum intact) and    fasciitis (spreading of deep wound infection to fascial tissue).<sup>8</sup>    Nylon sutures and SS were removed on day 10 postoperatively. There was no loss    to follow-up of patients.</font></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Statistical    analysis</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">SPSS version 18    was used to analyse the data. A p-value &lt;0.05 was considered statistically    significant. Outcome was dichotomised into any unhealed wound (codes 1 - 3)    v. no unhealed wounds (code 0), and generalised estimating equations were used    to estimate the effect of the intervention on having any unhealed wounds while    controlling for various confounders such as age, parity, HIV, etc. Odds ratios    (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Results</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Of the 1 522 women    who were eligible to participate, 422 were excluded because: (i) 177 declined    participation, (ii) 13 initially booked for CS delivered vaginally, and (iii)    232 were eligible but were not randomised because of logistical problems. The    remaining 1 100 were assigned randomly into 3 groups: 361 were in the PGA group,    373 in the SS group, and 366 in the nylon group (<a href="#f1">Fig. 1</a>).    There was no significant difference in the number of participants in each group.</font></p>     <p><a name="f1"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/samj/v102n6/24f01.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><a href="/img/revistas/samj/v102n6/24t01.jpg">Table    1</a> lists the demographic and the clinical characteristics of participants.    There was no difference in clinical characteristics between the study groups.</font></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Wound complication    rates</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Wound complications    occurred in 76 (7%) of the 1 100 patients: 1% (3/361) in group 1 (PGA sutures),    17% (65/373) in group 2 (SS), and 2% (8/366) in group 3 (nylon sutures).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Of wound complications,    64/76 (84%) occurred following discharge from hospital; 12 (16%) occurred during    hospitalisation (11 in group 2 and 1 in group 3). All 12 wound complications    that occurred in hospital were classified as superficial and were detected within    24 hours of CS.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Sixty-four (84%)    wound complications were observed on day 10 at the follow-up visit. Of the 64    wound complications, 10 were classified as superficial, 34 as deep, and 20 involved    wound breakdown. Two wound complications classified as deep and 12 classified    as wound breakdown occurred in the SS group and the patients required hospitalisation,    while the remainder were treated as outpatients. No patients with wound infections    required surgical closure.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">After controlling    for confounders such as age, parity, number of vaginal examinations, HIV status    and rupture of membranes &gt;12 hours, patients who had nylon sutures v. those    with PGA sutures were 9.5 times more likely to experience wound infection, but    the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.055). Patients who had    SS were at 6.93 times higher risk of wound infection (p=0.014) than those who    had PGA sutures. However, besides the type of suture, other factors influenced    wound infection. Women with rupture of membranes &gt;12 hours were 13.7 times    (95% CI 3.9 - 47.9; p&lt;0.0001) more likely to have wound infection than those    with rupture of membranes &lt;12 hours. For every 1-minute increase in the duration    of surgery, the risk of infection increased by 1.094 times (95% CI 1.046 - 1.145;    p&lt;0.0001). HIV-infected women were 53.4% less likely to develop wound infection    than uninfected women (OR 0.466, 95% CI 0.238 - 0.913; p=0.026). As the time    period of observation increased from baseline to day 3 and from day 3 to day    10, the risk of wound infection increased by 35 times (95% CI 8.155 - 150.868;    p&lt;0.001). The post-CS wound infection rate did not appear to be affected    by patient weight, level of surgeon, whether the CS was an emergency or an elective    procedure, or the number of vaginal examinations.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Cost of suture    materials</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><a href="#t2">Table    2</a> shows the cost (in rands) of the suture materials used in the study.</font></p>     <p><a name="t2"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/samj/v102n6/24t02.jpg"></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Discussion</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The overall rate    of wound complications following CS in this randomised clinical trial was 7%    compared with rates from 0 to</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">25% in other studies.<sup>6,9-13</sup>    This variation probably results from several factors in the various studies.<sup>9-13</sup>    Firstly, studies with broad exclusion criteria have lower wound complication    rates than studies with stringent exclusion criteria. The wound complication    rate in our study was 7%, with the only exclusion criterion being declining    to participate. Secondly, studies (including our study) in which the subcutaneous    fat layer was sutured prior to skin closure, reported lower wound complication    rates than those in which the subcutaneous fat layer had not been sutured.<sup>4,6,11</sup></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A limitation of    our study was that we did not measure BMI and therefore did not compare wound    infection rates in different BMI groupings. The mean weights in all 3 groups    were similar.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A pilot study involving    416 patients randomised to groups (sutures and SS) showed that post- CS wound    complications were significantly greater when SS were used;<sup>6</sup> the    incidence of wound infections in this study was obtained by telephonic interview,    2 - 4 weeks after surgery. Our larger sample size and actual detection of CS    wound infections on patients' return to hospital showed an incidence of 7%.    The high rate of wound complications observed with the use of SS could be explained    by either the difficulty in SS placement in a population group in which the    incidence of obesity is high, or allergic or inflammatory reactions associated    with the metallic nature of the SS. However, we did not study this objectively.    Reviews and meta-analysis indicate that SS used for skin closure after CS are    associated with a high incidence of wound complications.<sup>13,14</sup></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Surgical site infection    surveillance studies following CS show that most wound infections (637/758 (84%)    and 148/241 (61.4%)) occur at home after discharge from hospital.<sup>15,16</sup>    In our study, 64 (84%) of the 76 wound infections occurred following discharge    from hospital; this was despite the fact that our standard practice is to prescribe    prophylactic antibiotics at the time of CS and patients are given information    regarding wound care. Most of our patients are from low socio-economic backgrounds.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">An earlier study    demonstrated an association between maternal age, previous CS, anaemia, multiple    vaginal examinations, prolonged labour and post-CS wound infection.<sup>17</sup>    Our study could not confirm this association.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Our study confirmed    the role of rupture of membranes &gt;12 hours as a predisposing factor to developing    wound infection, as reported by Koigi-Kamau <i>et at.10</i> A short operation    time considerably reduces the risk of developing postoperative wound infection.<sup>14</sup>    In our study, the risk of wound infection increased for every 1-minute increase    in the duration of surgery. Women who were HIV-infected were less likely to    develop wound infection than those uninfected. This finding was surprising;    it may be because, in our study, all HIV-infected patients received therapeutic    antibiotics compared with their non-infected counterparts, who only received    prophylactic antibiotics.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Although detailed    cost analysis was not performed, there was a fourfold greater financial cost    incurred when SS were used for skin closure. Had sutures been used, hospital    savings of more than R117 000 would have been achieved - a significant saving    for health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Comparing subcuticular    sutures and SS for CS wound closure, Basha <i>et al.<sup>6</sup></i> found that    sutures were four times cheaper than SS. We found no differences in wound infection    rates and financial costs between PGA and nylon suture materials. However, we    did not take into account other costs such as anaesthetic, surgical time and    staffing.</font></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">We conclude that    using SS for CS wound closure is associated with a significantly greater risk    of infections, and recommend that SS not be used for CS skin closure in district    hospitals.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>References</b></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">1.&nbsp;Altman    AD, Allen VM, McNeil SA, Dempster J. Pfannenstiel incision closure: a review    of current skin closure techniques. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31(6):514-520.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540955&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400001&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">2.&nbsp;The CORONIS    Trial Collaborative Group. International study of caesarean section surgical    techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth    2007;7:24-58.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540956&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400002&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">3.&nbsp;Alderdice    F, McKenna D, Dornan J. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean    section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;2:CD003577.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540957&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400003&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">4.&nbsp;Rousseau    JA, Girard K, Tircot-Lemay L, Thomas N. A randomised study comparing skin closure    in cesarean section: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:265.e1-265.e4.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540958&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400004&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">5.&nbsp;Cromi A,    Ghezzi F, Gottardi A, et al. Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods    following cesarean delivery: a randomised trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(1):36e1-36e8.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540959&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400005&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">6.&nbsp;Basha SL,    Rochon ML, Quinones JN, Coassolo KM, Rust OA, Smulian JC. Randomized controlled    trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin    closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(1):285.e1-8.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540960&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400006&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">7.&nbsp;Anderson    ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean    section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD004663.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540961&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400007&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">8.&nbsp;Olsen MA,    Butler AM, Williers DM, Devkota P, Gross GA, Fraser VJ. Risk factors for surgical    site infections after low transverse caesarean section. Infect Control Hosp    Epidemiol 2008;29(6):477-484.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540962&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400008&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">9.&nbsp;Gaertner    I, Burkhardt T, Beinder E. Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous    tissure closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet    Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;138(1):29-33.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540963&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400009&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">10.&nbsp;Koigi-Kamau    R, Kabare LW, Wanyoike-Gichuhi J. Incidence of wound infection after caesarean    delivery in a district hospital in central Kenya. East Afr Med J 2005;2(7):357-361.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540964&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400010&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">11.&nbsp;Islam    A, Ehsan A. Comparison of suture material and technique of closure of subcutaneous    fat and skin in caesarean section. North Am J Med Sci 2011;3(2):85-88.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540965&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400011&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">12.&nbsp;Ezechi    CO, Edet A, Akinlade H, Gab-Okafor CV, Herbertson E. Incidence and risk factors    for caesarean wound infection in Lagos Nigeria. BMC Research Notes 2009;2:186-190.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540966&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400012&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">13.&nbsp;Tuuli    MG, Rampersad RM, Carbone JF, Stamilio D, Macones GA, Odibo AO. Staples compared    with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic    review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117(3):682-690.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540967&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400013&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">14.&nbsp;Clay FS,    Walsh CA, Walsh SR. Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean    delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol    2011;204(5):378-383.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540968&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400014&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">15.&nbsp;Petrosillo    N, Drapeau CMJ, Nicastri E, Martini L, Ippolito G, Moro ML, ANIPIO. Surgical    site infections in Italian Hospitals: a prospective multicentre study. BMC Infect    Dis 2008;8:34-49.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540969&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400015&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">16.&nbsp;Ward VP,    Charlett A, Fagan J, Crawshaw SC. Enhanced surgical site infection surveillance    following caesarean section: experience of a multicentre collaborative post-discharge    system. J Hosp Infect 2008;70(2):166-173.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540970&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400016&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">17.&nbsp;Litta    P, Vita P, Konishi de Toffoli J, Onnis GL. Risk factors for complicating infections    after cesarean section . Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1995;22(1):171-175.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=540971&pid=S0256-9574201200060002400017&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --><p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Accepted 29 December    2011.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> <b><i>Corresponding    author:</i></b> <i>J Moodley (<a href="mailto:tombe@ukzn.ac.za">tombe@ukzn.ac.za</a>)</i></font></p>      ]]></body>
<REFERENCES></REFERENCES<back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Altman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AD]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Allen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[VM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McNeil]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dempster]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Pfannenstiel incision closure: a review of current skin closure techniques]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Obstet Gynaecol Can]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>31</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>514-520</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<collab>The CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group</collab>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Pregnancy Childbirth]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<volume>7</volume>
<page-range>24-58</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Alderdice]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McKenna]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dornan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Cochrane Database Syst Rev]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<page-range>CD003577</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rousseau]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Girard]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tircot-Lemay]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Thomas]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[A randomised study comparing skin closure in cesarean section: staples vs subcuticular sutures]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>200</volume>
<page-range>265.e1-265.e4</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cromi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ghezzi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gottardi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Cosmetic outcomes of various skin closure methods following cesarean delivery: a randomised trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>203</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>36e1-36e8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Basha]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SL]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rochon]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ML]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Quinones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JN]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Coassolo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rust]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[OA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Smulian]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Randomized controlled trial of wound complication rates of subcuticular suture vs staples for skin closure at cesarean delivery]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>203</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>285.e1-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Anderson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ER]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gates]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Cochrane Database Syst Rev]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>4</volume>
<page-range>CD004663</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Olsen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Butler]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Williers]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Devkota]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gross]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fraser]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[VJ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Risk factors for surgical site infections after low transverse caesarean section]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>29</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>477-484</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gaertner]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Burkhardt]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Beinder]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissure closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>138</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>29-33</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Koigi-Kamau]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kabare]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[LW]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wanyoike-Gichuhi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Incidence of wound infection after caesarean delivery in a district hospital in central Kenya]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[East Afr Med J]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<numero>7</numero>
<issue>7</issue>
<page-range>357-361</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Islam]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ehsan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Comparison of suture material and technique of closure of subcutaneous fat and skin in caesarean section]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[North Am J Med Sci]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>3</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>85-88</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ezechi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CO]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Edet]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Akinlade]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gab-Okafor]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CV]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Herbertson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Incidence and risk factors for caesarean wound infection in Lagos Nigeria]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Research Notes]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<page-range>186-190</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tuuli]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MG]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rampersad]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[RM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Carbone]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JF]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stamilio]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Macones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Odibo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AO]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Staples compared with subcuticular suture for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>117</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>682-690</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Clay]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[FS]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Walsh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Walsh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SR]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>204</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>378-383</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Petrosillo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Drapeau]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CMJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nicastri]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martini]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ippolito]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Moro]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ML]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[ANIPIO: Surgical site infections in Italian Hospitals]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Infect Dis]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>8</volume>
<page-range>34-49</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ward]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[VP]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Charlett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fagan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Crawshaw]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SC]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Enhanced surgical site infection surveillance following caesarean section: experience of a multicentre collaborative post-discharge system]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Hosp Infect]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>70</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>166-173</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Litta]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Vita]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Konishi de Toffoli]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Onnis]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GL]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Risk factors for complicating infections after cesarean section]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>1995</year>
<volume>22</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>171-175</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
