Effect of Meconium Staining Amniotic Fluid on Fetal Outcome.

Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ Pub Date : 2024-04-01
P A Parveen, S A Begum, T Mahmud, Z Sultana, R R Sarker, K Nahar, A Khanom
{"title":"Effect of Meconium Staining Amniotic Fluid on Fetal Outcome.","authors":"P A Parveen, S A Begum, T Mahmud, Z Sultana, R R Sarker, K Nahar, A Khanom","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meconium-stained amniotic fluid is the passage of meconium by a fetus in utero during the antenatal period or in labour. It has for long been considered to be a bad predictor of fetal distress and meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). The objective of this study was to find out the fetal outcome of MSAF and clear amniotic fluid. This cross- sectional comparative study was carried out in Upazilla Health Complex, Palash, Narshingdi from July 2016 to June 2017. A total of 100 pregnant women among them 50 women with MSAF and 50 women with clear liquor were studied to see the record of ANC, mode of delivery and fetal outcome by APGAR score. Study showed that among MSAF group 76.0% (n=38) had irregular ANC and 24.0% (n=12) had regular ANC whereas in clear liquor 86.0% (n=43) had regular ANC 14.0% had irregular ANC. Among MSAF (50 cases) thick meconium was in 20 cases (40.0%) and thin meconium was in 30 cases (60.0%). Regarding mode of delivery 52.0% (n=26) MSAF cases had instrumental delivery and Caesarean section compared to 24.0% (n=12) in clear liquor group. Regarding thick MSAF among 40.0% (n=20), (n=14) had low APGAR score and (n=6) had normal score at one minute and (n=9) low APGAR score and (n=11) normal score at five minutes. In clear liquor, among 100.0% (n=50), 20.0% (n=10) had low APGAR score and 80.0% (n=40) had normal score at one-minute and at five minutes 8.0% (n=4) had low APGAR score and 92.0% (n=46) had normal score. Among MSAF 26.0% (n=13) were admitted to SCBU compare to 12.0% (n=6) in clear liquor group. The mean SCBU stay was 3.1 days in MSAF whereas 1.2 days in clear liquor. Among MSAF babies 4.0% (n=2) had MAS compared to no MAS in clear liquor group. Regarding Survivalist 92.0% (n=46) were alive in MSAF whereas 100.0% all (n=50) were alive in clear liquor group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94148,"journal":{"name":"Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

Meconium-stained amniotic fluid is the passage of meconium by a fetus in utero during the antenatal period or in labour. It has for long been considered to be a bad predictor of fetal distress and meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). The objective of this study was to find out the fetal outcome of MSAF and clear amniotic fluid. This cross- sectional comparative study was carried out in Upazilla Health Complex, Palash, Narshingdi from July 2016 to June 2017. A total of 100 pregnant women among them 50 women with MSAF and 50 women with clear liquor were studied to see the record of ANC, mode of delivery and fetal outcome by APGAR score. Study showed that among MSAF group 76.0% (n=38) had irregular ANC and 24.0% (n=12) had regular ANC whereas in clear liquor 86.0% (n=43) had regular ANC 14.0% had irregular ANC. Among MSAF (50 cases) thick meconium was in 20 cases (40.0%) and thin meconium was in 30 cases (60.0%). Regarding mode of delivery 52.0% (n=26) MSAF cases had instrumental delivery and Caesarean section compared to 24.0% (n=12) in clear liquor group. Regarding thick MSAF among 40.0% (n=20), (n=14) had low APGAR score and (n=6) had normal score at one minute and (n=9) low APGAR score and (n=11) normal score at five minutes. In clear liquor, among 100.0% (n=50), 20.0% (n=10) had low APGAR score and 80.0% (n=40) had normal score at one-minute and at five minutes 8.0% (n=4) had low APGAR score and 92.0% (n=46) had normal score. Among MSAF 26.0% (n=13) were admitted to SCBU compare to 12.0% (n=6) in clear liquor group. The mean SCBU stay was 3.1 days in MSAF whereas 1.2 days in clear liquor. Among MSAF babies 4.0% (n=2) had MAS compared to no MAS in clear liquor group. Regarding Survivalist 92.0% (n=46) were alive in MSAF whereas 100.0% all (n=50) were alive in clear liquor group.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
羊水胎粪染色对胎儿结局的影响
胎粪染色羊水是指产前或分娩时子宫内胎儿排出的胎粪。长期以来,它一直被认为是胎儿窘迫和胎粪吸入综合征(MAS)的不良预测指标。本研究的目的是了解羊水过多和羊水过少对胎儿的影响。这项横断面比较研究于 2016 年 7 月至 2017 年 6 月在纳辛迪的帕拉什乡卫生综合大楼进行。共对100名孕妇进行了研究,其中50名孕妇患有羊水过多症,50名孕妇患有羊水过少症,通过APGAR评分了解孕妇的产前检查记录、分娩方式和胎儿结局。研究显示,在 MSAF 组中,76.0%(38 人)的产前检查不正常,24.0%(12 人)的产前检查正常,而在清酒组中,86.0%(43 人)的产前检查正常,14.0%的产前检查不正常。在 50 例 MSAF 中,20 例(40.0%)胎粪粘稠,30 例(60.0%)胎粪稀薄。在分娩方式方面,52.0%(26 例)的 MSAF 病例采用了器械分娩和剖腹产,而清液组为 24.0%(12 例)。在 40.0%(20 人)的产妇中,APGAR 评分较低的有(14 人),1 分钟评分正常的有(6 人),APGAR 评分较低的有(9 人),5 分钟评分正常的有(11 人)。在100.0%(n=50)的清流液中,20.0%(n=10)在一分钟时APGAR评分较低,80.0%(n=40)评分正常;在五分钟时,8.0%(n=4)APGAR评分较低,92.0%(n=46)评分正常。在 MSAF 中,26.0%(13 人)被送入重症监护病房,而在清酒组中,这一比例为 12.0%(6 人)。产妇平均住院时间为 3.1 天,而清水组为 1.2 天。在 MSAF 婴儿中,4.0%(n=2)的婴儿接受了 MAS,而在清酒组中则没有。存活率方面,MSAF组92.0%(46人)的婴儿存活,而清酒组100.0%(50人)的婴儿存活。
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
Correlation of Stature with Great Toe Length in 5-10 Years Aged Bangladeshi Children. Demographic Characteristics, Clinical Profile, Outcome and Risk Factors of Covid-19 among Health Care Workers in a COVID Dedicated Hospital. Demographic Study of Epileptic Burn Patient in a Tertiary Level Hospital of Bangladesh. Distribution and Characteristics of Congenital Cardiac Surgery Centers within Bangladesh. Early Postoperative Outcome Following Laparoscopic Surgeries in Rectal Malignancies.
×
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