outcome of antenatal CARE PLANNED VBAC versus unplanned VBAC

Aisha Assmani Adam, Ohayla Hassan
{"title":"outcome of antenatal CARE PLANNED VBAC versus unplanned VBAC","authors":"Aisha Assmani Adam, Ohayla Hassan","doi":"10.54878/ijatms.206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nBackground: The primary target when setting policies in obstetrics and gynaecology is gaining successful delivery with the minimum feto-maternal adverse outcome. Studying the difference between planned and unplanned vaginal birth after caesarean section expected to serve such goal by monitoring and evaluating the possible risks in unplanned VBAC such as risk of rupture uterus and other relevant complication.\nMaterials: all pregnant women with one previous caesarean section planned for VBAC either in the ANC or labour pain.\nResults: A total of 245pregnant women had been enrolled in this study. The age of both groups found to be similar to each other. the education level had significant effect on the type of delivery in group A the majority of the women was university graduate while in group B who were unplanned for VBAC the majority are secondary. Most of both groups are from urban area. In group A, most of the patient parity are vary between I-IV as follow (87.6%) while in group B I_IV (84.6%). Group A had high visit rate for ANC most of them went to referral clinic (51.1%). While in group B (68.9%) went to health center. The commonest indication for a previous CS was failure to progress in both groups. The success rate of VBAC in both groups was similar (68%) in group A while in group B (67%). the commonest type of previous C/S was emergencies in both groups. In group A (94%) had been counseled for VBAC and majority was counseled by registrar while the majority in group B had not been counseled for VBAC.The maternal outcome in group A was (1.4%) for PPH & (1.4%) for uterine rupture while in group B (1%) for PPH and (2.9%) for uterine rupture and the majority of both groups had no complication. The neonatal outcome in group planned for VBAC was good (99%) alive baby while in group B (7%) had FSB. Group B recorded much rate admitted to ICU (18%).\nConclusion: The study highlighted that the success rates of VBAC in planned group were significantly higher than the unplanned group. There was no significant different in the maternal morbidity, the neonatal outcome in group planned for VBAC was better than in group B. Group B recorded much rate admitted to NICU among them the birth asphyxia was high than group planned for VBAC.","PeriodicalId":439844,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied Technology in Medical Sciences","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied Technology in Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54878/ijatms.206","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

Abstract Background: The primary target when setting policies in obstetrics and gynaecology is gaining successful delivery with the minimum feto-maternal adverse outcome. Studying the difference between planned and unplanned vaginal birth after caesarean section expected to serve such goal by monitoring and evaluating the possible risks in unplanned VBAC such as risk of rupture uterus and other relevant complication. Materials: all pregnant women with one previous caesarean section planned for VBAC either in the ANC or labour pain. Results: A total of 245pregnant women had been enrolled in this study. The age of both groups found to be similar to each other. the education level had significant effect on the type of delivery in group A the majority of the women was university graduate while in group B who were unplanned for VBAC the majority are secondary. Most of both groups are from urban area. In group A, most of the patient parity are vary between I-IV as follow (87.6%) while in group B I_IV (84.6%). Group A had high visit rate for ANC most of them went to referral clinic (51.1%). While in group B (68.9%) went to health center. The commonest indication for a previous CS was failure to progress in both groups. The success rate of VBAC in both groups was similar (68%) in group A while in group B (67%). the commonest type of previous C/S was emergencies in both groups. In group A (94%) had been counseled for VBAC and majority was counseled by registrar while the majority in group B had not been counseled for VBAC.The maternal outcome in group A was (1.4%) for PPH & (1.4%) for uterine rupture while in group B (1%) for PPH and (2.9%) for uterine rupture and the majority of both groups had no complication. The neonatal outcome in group planned for VBAC was good (99%) alive baby while in group B (7%) had FSB. Group B recorded much rate admitted to ICU (18%). Conclusion: The study highlighted that the success rates of VBAC in planned group were significantly higher than the unplanned group. There was no significant different in the maternal morbidity, the neonatal outcome in group planned for VBAC was better than in group B. Group B recorded much rate admitted to NICU among them the birth asphyxia was high than group planned for VBAC.
产前护理计划VBAC与计划外VBAC的结果
背景:在制定妇产科政策时的主要目标是获得成功分娩与最小的胎母不良后果。通过监测和评估非计划阴道分娩可能存在的风险,如子宫破裂风险及其他相关并发症,研究剖宫产后计划分娩与非计划阴道分娩的差异,以期达到这一目标。材料:所有在产前或阵痛期间计划过一次剖腹产的孕妇。结果:共有245名孕妇被纳入本研究。两组人的年龄发现彼此相似。受教育程度对分娩类型有显著影响,A组以大学毕业妇女居多,而B组以中学毕业妇女居多。这两个群体中的大多数都来自城市地区。在A组中,大多数患者胎次在I-IV之间,占87.6%,而在B组中,I_IV占84.6%。A组ANC就诊率高,以转诊为主(51.1%)。B组去卫生院就诊的占68.9%。在两组中,既往CS最常见的适应症是进展失败。两组VBAC的成功率A组为68%,B组为67%。在两组中,最常见的C/S类型都是紧急情况。A组(94%)接受了VBAC的咨询,大多数接受了登记员的咨询,而B组的大多数没有接受VBAC的咨询。A组PPH发生率为1.4%,子宫破裂发生率为1.4%,B组PPH发生率为1%,子宫破裂发生率为2.9%,两组均无并发症发生。VBAC组新生儿结局良好(99%),存活婴儿,而B组(7%)有FSB。B组住院率最高(18%)。结论:计划组VBAC的成功率明显高于未计划组。两组产妇发病率无显著性差异,VBAC组新生儿结局好于B组,B组新生儿入住NICU率高,其中新生儿窒息率高于VBAC组。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信