剖腹产后的新生儿结局

Deniece Hardy, Ryan Essex
{"title":"剖腹产后的新生儿结局","authors":"Deniece Hardy, Ryan Essex","doi":"10.12968/bjom.2024.32.3.120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section is considered a safe option for subsequent births following personal planning and counselling. The aim of this study was to compare neonatal outcomes for both elective caesarean and vaginal birth after a previous caesarean section to aid decision making for women/pregnant people. This quantitative study used retrospective data from low-risk pregnant people/women at term with one previous caesarean section (n=392). Logistic regression was used to determine the impact of mode of birth on neonatal outcomes. Further descriptive analyses were carried out to explore the results and reasons for admission to neonatal unit. Apgar scores were higher in the vaginal birth group compared to the elective repeat caesarean group. There were no differences in neonatal unit admissions by mode of birth. There is minimal difference in neonatal outcomes, regardless of intention for either vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section or elective repeat caesarean. To fully investigate the factors that impacted Apgar scores and neonatal unit admissions for these groups, a much larger sample is needed.","PeriodicalId":52489,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Midwifery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neonatal outcomes following one previous caesarean section\",\"authors\":\"Deniece Hardy, Ryan Essex\",\"doi\":\"10.12968/bjom.2024.32.3.120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section is considered a safe option for subsequent births following personal planning and counselling. The aim of this study was to compare neonatal outcomes for both elective caesarean and vaginal birth after a previous caesarean section to aid decision making for women/pregnant people. This quantitative study used retrospective data from low-risk pregnant people/women at term with one previous caesarean section (n=392). Logistic regression was used to determine the impact of mode of birth on neonatal outcomes. Further descriptive analyses were carried out to explore the results and reasons for admission to neonatal unit. Apgar scores were higher in the vaginal birth group compared to the elective repeat caesarean group. There were no differences in neonatal unit admissions by mode of birth. There is minimal difference in neonatal outcomes, regardless of intention for either vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section or elective repeat caesarean. To fully investigate the factors that impacted Apgar scores and neonatal unit admissions for these groups, a much larger sample is needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Midwifery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2024.32.3.120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2024.32.3.120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在个人规划和咨询后,剖腹产后阴道分娩被认为是以后分娩的安全选择。本研究旨在比较既往剖腹产后选择剖腹产和阴道分娩的新生儿结局,以帮助妇女/孕妇做出决策。这项定量研究使用了曾进行过一次剖腹产的低风险孕妇/足月妇女(n=392)的回顾性数据。研究采用逻辑回归法确定分娩方式对新生儿预后的影响。还进行了进一步的描述性分析,以探究结果和入住新生儿科的原因。与选择性再次剖腹产组相比,阴道分娩组的Apgar评分更高。不同分娩方式导致的新生儿入院率没有差异。无论是剖腹产后经阴道分娩还是选择再次剖腹产,新生儿结局的差异都很小。要全面研究影响这些群体的阿普加评分和新生儿入院情况的因素,需要更多的样本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Neonatal outcomes following one previous caesarean section
Vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section is considered a safe option for subsequent births following personal planning and counselling. The aim of this study was to compare neonatal outcomes for both elective caesarean and vaginal birth after a previous caesarean section to aid decision making for women/pregnant people. This quantitative study used retrospective data from low-risk pregnant people/women at term with one previous caesarean section (n=392). Logistic regression was used to determine the impact of mode of birth on neonatal outcomes. Further descriptive analyses were carried out to explore the results and reasons for admission to neonatal unit. Apgar scores were higher in the vaginal birth group compared to the elective repeat caesarean group. There were no differences in neonatal unit admissions by mode of birth. There is minimal difference in neonatal outcomes, regardless of intention for either vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section or elective repeat caesarean. To fully investigate the factors that impacted Apgar scores and neonatal unit admissions for these groups, a much larger sample is needed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Midwifery
British Journal of Midwifery Nursing-Maternity and Midwifery
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: British Journal of Midwifery (BJM) is the leading clinical journal for midwives. Published each month, the journal is written by midwives for midwives and peer reviewed by some of the foremost authorities in the profession. BJM is essential reading for all midwives. It contains the best clinical reviews, original research and evidence-based articles available, and ensures that midwives are kept fully up-to-date with the latest developments taking place in clinical practice. In addition, each issue of the journal contains a symposium on a particular theme, providing more in-depth clinical information.
期刊最新文献
Breast self-examination among community midwife and lady health visitor students in Pakistan An evidence-based nipple care pathway for new breastfeeding mothers: a Delphi study Cultivating patient safety culture in midwifery practices through incident reporting Supporting the older midwifery workforce Molar pregnancy: a qualitative study of personal experiences and societal narratives of loss
×
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