ASSESSMENT OF IMMEDIATE PERINEAL COMPLICATIONS OF NORMAL VAGINAL DELIVERY VERSUS VAGINAL DELIVERY WITH EPISIOTOMY IN TERM PREGNANCY IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

Samdana Wahab
{"title":"ASSESSMENT OF IMMEDIATE PERINEAL COMPLICATIONS OF NORMAL VAGINAL DELIVERY VERSUS VAGINAL DELIVERY WITH EPISIOTOMY IN TERM PREGNANCY IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL","authors":"Samdana Wahab","doi":"10.52764/jms.23.31.1.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To assess immediate intra and postpartum perineal complications following normal vaginal delivery versus vaginal delivery with episiotomy in term pregnancy.\nMaterial and methods: This Cross-sectional study, was conducted in Peshawar, Lady Reading Hospital, Gynae ward from 1st November 2019 to 31st January 2020 after approval from Institutional Research Board. A total of 250 patients (125 in each group), 120 in group A with normal vaginal delivery, 115 in group B (vaginal delivery with an episiotomy), and 15 patients were excluded due to different modes of delivery (instrumental delivery/cesarean section). All patients with full-term pregnancies were included. Patients who refused to give consent or had bleeding disorders and indications for instrumental delivery or cesarean section were excluded. Non-probable convenience sampling technique, P-value <0.05, 95% confidence interval, and Chi-square test used for statistical analysis\nResults: In the group, A mean age of 22 years, primigravida (PG) 84 (70%) multigravida (MG) 36 (30%) mean period of gestation (POG) 38 weeks, 96(80%) spontaneous, 24 (20%) induced labor. In group B the mean age was 21.8 years, PG 77 (66%), MG 38(33%), mean POG 41 weeks, 97 (84%) spontaneous, and 18 (15%) induced labor. Group A vaginal tears 6 (5%), cervical tears 4 (3%), mixed tears 9 (7.5%), para-urethral tears 2 (1.6%), and perineal tears 9(7.5%). Group B vaginal tears 3 (2.6%), cervical tears 3 (2.6%), mixed tears 2 (1.7%). No significant post-natal pain difference was observed in the groups.\nCONCLUSION:  Routine practice of episiotomy should be discouraged as no significant difference was observed in both groups.\nKEYWORDS: Episiotomy, Term pregnancy, Vaginal delivery.","PeriodicalId":39900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Sciences (Taiwan)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Sciences (Taiwan)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52764/jms.23.31.1.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess immediate intra and postpartum perineal complications following normal vaginal delivery versus vaginal delivery with episiotomy in term pregnancy. Material and methods: This Cross-sectional study, was conducted in Peshawar, Lady Reading Hospital, Gynae ward from 1st November 2019 to 31st January 2020 after approval from Institutional Research Board. A total of 250 patients (125 in each group), 120 in group A with normal vaginal delivery, 115 in group B (vaginal delivery with an episiotomy), and 15 patients were excluded due to different modes of delivery (instrumental delivery/cesarean section). All patients with full-term pregnancies were included. Patients who refused to give consent or had bleeding disorders and indications for instrumental delivery or cesarean section were excluded. Non-probable convenience sampling technique, P-value <0.05, 95% confidence interval, and Chi-square test used for statistical analysis Results: In the group, A mean age of 22 years, primigravida (PG) 84 (70%) multigravida (MG) 36 (30%) mean period of gestation (POG) 38 weeks, 96(80%) spontaneous, 24 (20%) induced labor. In group B the mean age was 21.8 years, PG 77 (66%), MG 38(33%), mean POG 41 weeks, 97 (84%) spontaneous, and 18 (15%) induced labor. Group A vaginal tears 6 (5%), cervical tears 4 (3%), mixed tears 9 (7.5%), para-urethral tears 2 (1.6%), and perineal tears 9(7.5%). Group B vaginal tears 3 (2.6%), cervical tears 3 (2.6%), mixed tears 2 (1.7%). No significant post-natal pain difference was observed in the groups. CONCLUSION:  Routine practice of episiotomy should be discouraged as no significant difference was observed in both groups. KEYWORDS: Episiotomy, Term pregnancy, Vaginal delivery.
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
三级医院评估足月妊娠正常阴道分娩与会阴切开阴道分娩的即时会阴并发症
目的:评估足月妊娠正常阴道分娩与会阴切开阴道分娩后的即时会阴部并发症。材料和方法:经机构研究委员会批准,这项横断面研究于2019年11月1日至2020年1月31日在白沙瓦雷丁夫人医院妇科病房进行。共有250名患者(每组125名)、120名正常阴道分娩的A组患者、115名会阴切开阴道分娩的B组患者和15名因不同分娩方式(器械分娩/剖宫产)而被排除在外。所有足月妊娠的患者都包括在内。拒绝同意或有出血障碍和器械分娩或剖宫产指征的患者被排除在外。非概率方便抽样技术,P值<0.05,95%置信区间,卡方检验用于统计分析结果:本组A平均年龄22岁,初产妇(PG)84(70%)多胎(MG)36(30%)平均妊娠期(POG)38周,96(80%)自然分娩,24(20%)引产。B组的平均年龄为21.8岁,PG 77(66%),MG 38(33%),平均POG 41周,97(84%)为自然分娩,18(15%)为引产。A组阴道撕裂6处(5%),宫颈撕裂4处(3%),混合撕裂9处(7.5%),尿道旁撕裂2处(1.6%),会阴部撕裂9处。结论:由于两组均未观察到显著差异,应劝阻常规会阴切开术。关键词:会阴切开术,足月妊娠,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
Journal of Medical Sciences (Taiwan)
Journal of Medical Sciences (Taiwan) Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
A prospective study of vitamin D deficiency in patients with hemorrhagic stroke Effect of betahistine on isolated rats' tracheal smooth muscles Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for proximal femur fractures: A narrative review Levosimendan as adjuvant therapy for cardiogenic shock patients with temporary ventricular assist device Solitary fibrous tumor in the preperitoneal space mimicking an intra-abdominal tumor
×
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