Perinatal Outcome: A Comparative Study between Emergency and Elective Caesarean Section at A Tertiary Care Hospital

Arun Prasad Joshi, Neer Shobha Chitrakar, J. Pariyar, I. Shrestha, Rima Maharjan, P. Maharjan
{"title":"Perinatal Outcome: A Comparative Study between Emergency and Elective Caesarean Section at A Tertiary Care Hospital","authors":"Arun Prasad Joshi, Neer Shobha Chitrakar, J. Pariyar, I. Shrestha, Rima Maharjan, P. Maharjan","doi":"10.59881/jpeson1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Caesarean delivery is the most commonly performed lifesaving procedure in obstetrics. Caesarean section can be done in emergency and elective basis. There has been rising trend of caesarean section over the last few decades. Both the caesarean sections are associated with fetal risks than vaginal delivery. \nObjectives: To assess and compare the perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective caesarean sections. \nMethods: It was a cross-sectional comparative study done in Civil Service Hospital of Nepal over the period of one year starting from January 2021 to December 2021. All the patients who underwent caesarean section during the study period were taken into study. Data regarding perinatal outcomes were analysed by SPSS software. \nResults: During the study period, there were 1349 total deliveries. Caesarean sections accounted for 52.2% (n=705) of all deliveries. There were a total of 373 (52.9%) emergency CS and 332 (47.1%) elective CS. Most common indications of emergency and elective caesarean section were fetal distress and previous caesarean section respectively.Out of 713 new-born’s, 26 (6.9%) were preterm in emergency CS, 4 (2.1%) in elective group which was statistically significant (X2 <0.001). Regarding APGAR score, need of resuscitation, nursery admission, respiratory distress syndrome, and neonatal intensive care unit transfer, neonates delivered by emergency basis had more number of babies than elective. However, there was no significant difference. There was one early neonatal death in the study period. \nConclusion: Caesarean section is in rising trend of late. However, timely decision making skills can certainly lead to better perinatal outcome in caesarean sections.","PeriodicalId":158871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatal Society of Nepal","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatal Society of Nepal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59881/jpeson1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Caesarean delivery is the most commonly performed lifesaving procedure in obstetrics. Caesarean section can be done in emergency and elective basis. There has been rising trend of caesarean section over the last few decades. Both the caesarean sections are associated with fetal risks than vaginal delivery. Objectives: To assess and compare the perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective caesarean sections. Methods: It was a cross-sectional comparative study done in Civil Service Hospital of Nepal over the period of one year starting from January 2021 to December 2021. All the patients who underwent caesarean section during the study period were taken into study. Data regarding perinatal outcomes were analysed by SPSS software. Results: During the study period, there were 1349 total deliveries. Caesarean sections accounted for 52.2% (n=705) of all deliveries. There were a total of 373 (52.9%) emergency CS and 332 (47.1%) elective CS. Most common indications of emergency and elective caesarean section were fetal distress and previous caesarean section respectively.Out of 713 new-born’s, 26 (6.9%) were preterm in emergency CS, 4 (2.1%) in elective group which was statistically significant (X2 <0.001). Regarding APGAR score, need of resuscitation, nursery admission, respiratory distress syndrome, and neonatal intensive care unit transfer, neonates delivered by emergency basis had more number of babies than elective. However, there was no significant difference. There was one early neonatal death in the study period. Conclusion: Caesarean section is in rising trend of late. However, timely decision making skills can certainly lead to better perinatal outcome in caesarean sections.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
围产儿结局:三级医院急诊与择期剖宫产的比较研究
简介:剖宫产是产科最常用的救命手术。剖宫产可以在紧急情况下进行,也可以在择期进行。在过去的几十年里,剖腹产有上升的趋势。这两种剖腹产都比阴道分娩更有胎儿风险。目的:评价和比较急诊和择期剖宫产的围产儿结局。方法:采用横断面比较研究方法,于2021年1月至2021年12月在尼泊尔公务员医院进行为期一年的研究。所有在研究期间接受剖腹产手术的患者被纳入研究。围产期结局数据采用SPSS软件进行分析。结果:研究期间共分娩1349例。剖宫产占所有分娩的52.2% (n=705)。急诊CS 373例(52.9%),选择性CS 332例(47.1%)。紧急剖宫产和择期剖宫产最常见的指征分别是胎儿窘迫和既往剖宫产。713例新生儿中,急诊组早产26例(6.9%),择期组早产4例(2.1%),差异有统计学意义(X2 <0.001)。在APGAR评分、复苏需求、托儿所入院、呼吸窘迫综合征和新生儿重症监护病房转院方面,急诊分娩的新生儿数量多于择期分娩。但两组间无显著性差异。研究期间有1例新生儿早期死亡。结论:剖宫产率呈上升趋势。然而,及时的决策技巧当然可以导致剖腹产更好的围产期结局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Experience of Providing Kangaroo Mother Care at a Tertiary Hospital Perinatal Outcome Following Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment at A Tertiary Fertility Center In Nepal. Prevalence of Bacterial Vaginosis in Preterm Labour and Its Fetal and Maternal Outcome Antenatal Magnesium Sulphate Infusion for Neuroprotection of Preterm Babies Failed Successive Attempts at Medical Abortion of A 26 Weeks Intrauterine Fetal Death and The Discovery of Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1