Background: Several surgical procedures to minimise intraoperative blood loss in caesarean section births have been developed. One of these still disputed approaches is the extension of uterine incision using sharp or stubborn ways. Different surgeons have endorsed each strategy based on their personal experiences. The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of acute vs. blunt uterine expansion. Method: This is a randomised, controlled trial of 400 C-sector patients split into two groups at Benha University Hospitals and Benha Insurance Hospital. (Group 1); 200 of them have had blunt uterus incisions (Group 2); 200 of them have been sharply uterine incised; The results: average age in Group A was 28.91 (± 3.95 SD) with a range (23-35); 41% were nulliparous; 19% had parity; 19.5% had two parities; 6% had three parities; 7.0% had four; 7.5% had five; and average BMI was 29,72 (± 2,86 SD). As regards unintentional extensions <2cm, there was substantial difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative discomfort between both groups. The risk of intraoperative or postpartial haemorrhage did not change. Sharp uterine expansion technique may be healed quicker than the blunt uterine expansion technique and with a sharp uterine expansion technique, the demand for blood transfusion is lower. Conclusion: Based on this finding, future investigations with bigger patients and a longer follow-up time are required in order to highlight this conclusion.