Background: Cesarean section (CS) can be considered as one of the most frequently performed surgical procedure worldwide, accounting for up to 70% of deliveries, depending on the facility being assessed and the country involved. In Egypt its rate reach about 51.8% from deliveries. Objetive: To compare closure versus non-closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum during primary cesarean section regarding early postoperative outcome. Patients and Methods: A randomized-controlled study that was conducted at Ismailia General Hospitals during the period from November 2018 to March 2019. Included 142 pregnant women attending Obstetrics and Gynecology Department for primary cesarean section who were divided into two groups. Group I (Control) 71 patients with closure of both the visceral and parietal peritoneum (Study) 71 patients with non-closure of both the visceral and parietal peritoneum. Patients were assessed for intra-operative parameters including operation time. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for pain degree, distention, fever, regain of intestinal sound, wound infection and duration of hospital stay. Results: There was statistically significant difference between both groups regarding age, BMI, parity, gestational age and type of CS. Non-closure technique of both visceral and parietal peritoneum in CS is associated with shorter operation time, less postoperative pain score, rapid regain of intestinal motility and less duration of hospital stay. Conclusion: Non-closure of both visceral and parietal peritoneum at CS is associated with less operative time, less postoperative pain and distention and wound infection hence routine closure of peritoneum at CS can be avoided.

Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction with high morbidity and mortality caused by impaired regulation of host response to infection. Because there is no confirmatory diagnostic test, the inpatients who develop sepsis may have delays in evaluation, testing, and treatment. Sepsis screening tools and interventional protocols based on standard criteria can provide a rapid method to identify sepsis and patients at risk for sepsis and organ dysfunction. Aim: Suggest sepsis interventional protocol for patients post-surgery. Design: A descriptive exploratory design was used. Setting: The study was carried in surgery and emergency intensive care units at Ain Shams University hospital. Subjects: A convenient sample consisted of all the health team (nurses and physician) and a purposive sample of adult patients from both gender in previous mentioned setting within 3 months. Tools: Two tools were used to collect data; Health team′ Self-administered questionnaire and Sepsis Screening Tool Results: showed that 53% of the studied patients had sepsis and 29% of them were had sever sepsis. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between health team opinion in surgery and emergency intensive care units regarding factors associated with sepsis rate among studied patients P ˃ 0.05 with a positive correlation between total sepsis rate and total score of factors associated with sepsis rate among patients' post-surgery in ICU surgery and ICU emergency Conclusion: showed that half of the studied patients had sepsis and one third of them were sever sepsis. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between health team opinion in surgery and emergency intensive care units regarding factors associated with sepsis rate among studied patients with a positive correlation between total sepsis rate and total score of factors associated with sepsis rate among patients' post-surgery in ICU surgery and ICU emergency.