La Tunisie medicale · 2024
[Not Available].
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеАннотация на английскомНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hakim Hana, Derbel Mohamed, Mtibaa Hajer, Akrout Basma, Trigui Khaled, Chaker Fatma, Khanfir Fatma, Chaabane Kais
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Vaginal delivery after caesarean section (VBAC) is recommended, but the rising rate of uterine rupture calls into question the safety of this practice.
AIM: To identify risk factors for uterine dehiscence and rupture.
METHODS: This was a prospective, analytical and descriptive observational study, carried out in a tertiary care maternity. We included all parturients with one previous caesarean section undergoing trial of labor. We assessed the quality of the uterine scar which was evaluated after delivery.
RESULTS: We included 300 patients with one previous caesarean section undergoing trial of labor. The trial of labor was successful (vaginal delivery) in 50.7% of cases. The uterine scar, assessed after delivery, was of good quality in 79% of cases. We noted 7 cases of uterine rupture, i.e. 2.3% of cases, and dehiscence in 56 patients, i.e. 18.6% of cases. Parity, conditions of previous caesarean section (programmed or emergency) and interpregnancy interval were significantly related to the labor outcome (p=0.004, p=0.001 and p=0.135 respectively). The occurrence of rupture or dehiscence was not significantly related to macrosomia, defined as a neonatal weight greater than 4000g (p=0.135).
CONCLUSION: Knowing the risk factors for uterine dehiscence and rupture would enable the obstetrician to properly assess the situation in order to make the correct decision and avoid neonatal and maternal complications.
AIM: To identify risk factors for uterine dehiscence and rupture.
METHODS: This was a prospective, analytical and descriptive observational study, carried out in a tertiary care maternity. We included all parturients with one previous caesarean section undergoing trial of labor. We assessed the quality of the uterine scar which was evaluated after delivery.
RESULTS: We included 300 patients with one previous caesarean section undergoing trial of labor. The trial of labor was successful (vaginal delivery) in 50.7% of cases. The uterine scar, assessed after delivery, was of good quality in 79% of cases. We noted 7 cases of uterine rupture, i.e. 2.3% of cases, and dehiscence in 56 patients, i.e. 18.6% of cases. Parity, conditions of previous caesarean section (programmed or emergency) and interpregnancy interval were significantly related to the labor outcome (p=0.004, p=0.001 and p=0.135 respectively). The occurrence of rupture or dehiscence was not significantly related to macrosomia, defined as a neonatal weight greater than 4000g (p=0.135).
CONCLUSION: Knowing the risk factors for uterine dehiscence and rupture would enable the obstetrician to properly assess the situation in order to make the correct decision and avoid neonatal and maternal complications.