Reverse Breech Extraction versus Vaginal Push before Uterine Incision during Cesarean Section with Fully Dilated Cervix and Impacted Fetal Head

IF 0.1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Pub Date : 2023-10-10 DOI:10.29328/journal.cjog.1001145
Elshamy Elsayed, Sharaf Abdelbar, Shaheen Abdelhamid
{"title":"Reverse Breech Extraction versus Vaginal Push before Uterine Incision during Cesarean Section with Fully Dilated Cervix and Impacted Fetal Head","authors":"Elshamy Elsayed, Sharaf Abdelbar, Shaheen Abdelhamid","doi":"10.29328/journal.cjog.1001145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare between the two commonly used methods to deliver the fetus in emergency cesarean section with fully dilated cervix and impacted fetal head; vaginal push up of the fetal head and reverse breech extraction regarding safety and efficacy. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted 152 women underwent emergency CS with fully dilated cervix and impacted fetal head were divided into two groups; Group 1, vaginal push (n = 96) and Group 2, reverse breech delivery (n = 56). Data variables were collected and analyzed to evaluate whether either method is more safe regarding maternal and fetal outcomes. Results: There was a significant higher percentage of extension of uterine incision in group 1 (p = 0.002). Also, there were significant higher mean values of operative time and operative blood loss in group 1 (p = 0.008 and 0.015; respectively). On the other hand, there was a significantly shorter uterotomy to delivery time in group 1 (p < 0.001). There was a significantly higher mean value of APGAR score at one minute in group 1 (p = 0.043) but no significant difference between the two groups regarding APGAR score at five minutes, atonic PPH, postoperative blood transfusion and hospital stay. Conclusion: Vaginal push technique was associated with significantly higher intraoperative maternal morbidity but postoperative maternal morbidity and fetal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Push method (after uterine incision) is still the preferable method and larger studies are required to assess the fetal safety with reverse breech extraction.","PeriodicalId":36268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.cjog.1001145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare between the two commonly used methods to deliver the fetus in emergency cesarean section with fully dilated cervix and impacted fetal head; vaginal push up of the fetal head and reverse breech extraction regarding safety and efficacy. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted 152 women underwent emergency CS with fully dilated cervix and impacted fetal head were divided into two groups; Group 1, vaginal push (n = 96) and Group 2, reverse breech delivery (n = 56). Data variables were collected and analyzed to evaluate whether either method is more safe regarding maternal and fetal outcomes. Results: There was a significant higher percentage of extension of uterine incision in group 1 (p = 0.002). Also, there were significant higher mean values of operative time and operative blood loss in group 1 (p = 0.008 and 0.015; respectively). On the other hand, there was a significantly shorter uterotomy to delivery time in group 1 (p < 0.001). There was a significantly higher mean value of APGAR score at one minute in group 1 (p = 0.043) but no significant difference between the two groups regarding APGAR score at five minutes, atonic PPH, postoperative blood transfusion and hospital stay. Conclusion: Vaginal push technique was associated with significantly higher intraoperative maternal morbidity but postoperative maternal morbidity and fetal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Push method (after uterine incision) is still the preferable method and larger studies are required to assess the fetal safety with reverse breech extraction.
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
宫颈完全扩张胎头阻生剖宫产术中子宫切开前反臀位抽出与阴道推入
目的:比较宫颈完全扩张、胎头撞击急诊剖宫产两种常用分娩方式的差异;阴道上推胎头和反向臀位提取的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性观察研究152例宫颈完全扩张胎头阻生的急诊CS患者,分为两组;组1阴道推(n = 96),组2反臀位分娩(n = 56)。收集和分析数据变量,以评估是否两种方法对产妇和胎儿的结局更安全。结果:1组子宫切口延长率显著高于对照组(p = 0.002)。1组患者手术时间和术中出血量平均值显著高于对照组(p = 0.008、0.015;分别)。另一方面,1组剖宫产时间明显缩短(p <0.001)。第1组患者1分钟APGAR评分平均值显著高于第1组(p = 0.043),但两组患者5分钟APGAR评分、无张力PPH、术后输血及住院时间差异无统计学意义。结论:阴道推术术中产妇发病率显著增高,但两组术后产妇发病率和胎儿结局无明显差异。推法(子宫切开后)仍是较好的方法,需要更大规模的研究来评估反向臀位取出术的胎儿安全性。
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
Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Management of Congenital Cervical Teratoma with Application of EXIT Protocol - Case Report Reverse Breech Extraction versus Vaginal Push before Uterine Incision during Cesarean Section with Fully Dilated Cervix and Impacted Fetal Head Postdate Pregnancy Maternal and Fetal Outcomes among Sudanese Women Age as a Predictor of Time to Response for Patients Undergoing Medical Management of Endometrial Cancer Ectopic Pregnancy Risk Factors Presentation and Management Outcomes
×
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