Mode of delivery according to Robson classification and perinatal outcomes in restricted and small for gestational age fetuses.

Jaqueline Brandão Mazzola, Ana Cristina Perez Zamarian, Ana Carolina Rabachini Caetano, Luiza Grosso Silva Drumond, Vivian Macedo Gomes Marçal, Amanda Botelho, Edward Araujo Júnior, Sue Yasaki Sun, Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza
{"title":"Mode of delivery according to Robson classification and perinatal outcomes in restricted and small for gestational age fetuses.","authors":"Jaqueline Brandão Mazzola, Ana Cristina Perez Zamarian, Ana Carolina Rabachini Caetano, Luiza Grosso Silva Drumond, Vivian Macedo Gomes Marçal, Amanda Botelho, Edward Araujo Júnior, Sue Yasaki Sun, Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza","doi":"10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the mode of delivery according to Robson classification (RC) and the perinatal outcomes in fetal growth restriction (FGR) and small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study by analyzing medical records of singleton pregnancies from two consecutive years (2018 and 2019). FGR was defined according to Delphi Consensus. The Robson groups were divided into two intervals (1-5.1 and 5.2-10).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total of 852 cases were included: FGR (n = 85), SGA (n = 20) and control (n=747). FGR showed higher percentages of newborns < 1,500 grams (p<0.001) and higher overall cesarean section (CS) rates (p<0.001). FGR had the highest rates of neonatal resuscitation and neonatal intensive care unit admission (p<0.001). SGA and control presented higher percentage of patients classified in 1 - 5.1 RC groups, while FGR had higher percentage in 5.2 - 10 RC groups (p<0.001). FGR, SGA and control did not differ in the mode of delivery in the 1-5.1 RC groups as all groups showed a higher percentage of vaginal deliveries (p=0.476).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Fetuses with FGR had higher CS rates and worse perinatal outcomes than SGA and control fetuses. Most FGR fetuses were delivered by cesarean section and were allocated in 5.2 to 10 RC groups, while most SGA and control fetuses were allocated in 1 to 5.1 RC groups. Vaginal delivery occurred in nearly 60% of FGR allocated in 1-5.1 RC groups without a significant increase in perinatal morbidity. Therefore, the vaginal route should be considered in FGR fetuses.</p>","PeriodicalId":74699,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the mode of delivery according to Robson classification (RC) and the perinatal outcomes in fetal growth restriction (FGR) and small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study by analyzing medical records of singleton pregnancies from two consecutive years (2018 and 2019). FGR was defined according to Delphi Consensus. The Robson groups were divided into two intervals (1-5.1 and 5.2-10).

Results: Total of 852 cases were included: FGR (n = 85), SGA (n = 20) and control (n=747). FGR showed higher percentages of newborns < 1,500 grams (p<0.001) and higher overall cesarean section (CS) rates (p<0.001). FGR had the highest rates of neonatal resuscitation and neonatal intensive care unit admission (p<0.001). SGA and control presented higher percentage of patients classified in 1 - 5.1 RC groups, while FGR had higher percentage in 5.2 - 10 RC groups (p<0.001). FGR, SGA and control did not differ in the mode of delivery in the 1-5.1 RC groups as all groups showed a higher percentage of vaginal deliveries (p=0.476).

Conclusion: Fetuses with FGR had higher CS rates and worse perinatal outcomes than SGA and control fetuses. Most FGR fetuses were delivered by cesarean section and were allocated in 5.2 to 10 RC groups, while most SGA and control fetuses were allocated in 1 to 5.1 RC groups. Vaginal delivery occurred in nearly 60% of FGR allocated in 1-5.1 RC groups without a significant increase in perinatal morbidity. Therefore, the vaginal route should be considered in FGR fetuses.

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
根据罗布森分类法确定的分娩方式与限制妊娠胎儿和小胎龄胎儿的围产期结局。
目的根据罗布森分类法(RC)评估胎儿生长受限(FGR)和小胎龄(SGA)胎儿的分娩方式和围产期结局:通过分析连续两年(2018年和2019年)的单胎妊娠病历进行回顾性队列研究。FGR根据德尔菲共识进行定义。罗布森组分为两个区间(1-5.1 和 5.2-10):结果:共纳入 852 个病例:结果:共纳入 852 个病例:FGR(85 例)、SGA(20 例)和对照组(747 例)。FGR显示新生儿体重小于1,500克的比例较高(p结论:与SGA胎儿和对照组胎儿相比,FGR胎儿的CS率更高,围产期结局更差。大多数FGR胎儿通过剖宫产分娩,被分配在5.2至10个RC组,而大多数SGA胎儿和对照组胎儿被分配在1至5.1个RC组。近 60% 被分配在 1-5.1 RC 组的 FGR 胎儿经阴道分娩,但围产期发病率并未显著增加。因此,FGR 胎儿应考虑经阴道分娩。
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
Syphilis and pregnancy. Immunosuppressants in women with repeated implantation failure in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multidisciplinary team training in postpartum hemorrhage: impact on the use of blood products. Neonatal and maternal outcomes of mRNA versus Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. A new screening of preterm birth in gestation with short cervix after pessary plus progesterone.
×
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