The French Ambulatory Cesarean Section: Safety and Recovery Characteristics

IF 2 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
{"title":"The French Ambulatory Cesarean Section: Safety and Recovery Characteristics","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jogc.2024.102606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The French AmbUlatory Extraperitoneal Cesarean Section (FAUCS) is aimed at improving patients’ birth experience and recovery. However, data are scarce regarding its maternal and neonatal safety. This study seeks to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes between FAUCS and conventional cesarean deliveries at term.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective cohort study involving women who underwent scheduled cesarean deliveries at term. We compared a total of 810 cases using the FAUCS technique with 217 cases using conventional cesarean deliveries. Surgical complications, adverse neonatal events, and maternal recovery parameters were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The incidence of overall surgical complications was comparable between the 2 groups, with rates of 1.97% for FAUCS and 1.85% for the conventional cesarean deliveries. The rates of specific complications such as bladder injury (0.1%), bowel injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (1.35%), and postpartum hemorrhage (1%) were consistent with existing literature. Neonatal outcomes, including neonatal acidemia and admission rates to the neonatal intensive care unit, were comparable between the groups and demonstrated favourable comparisons with previously reported data. Notably, women in the FAUCS group required less analgesia, with only 0.8% receiving morphine, as opposed to 38% in the control group. Furthermore, the FAUCS group demonstrated significantly quicker recovery, with 86% achieving autonomy and early discharge at their discretion within 48 hours after operation, in contrast to only 17% in the control group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>When performed by experienced practitioners, FAUCS proves to be a safe procedure, with no increased risk for maternal or neonatal complications. Its significant benefits in terms of enhancing maternal recovery are noteworthy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada","volume":"46 8","pages":"Article 102606"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1701216324004298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The French AmbUlatory Extraperitoneal Cesarean Section (FAUCS) is aimed at improving patients’ birth experience and recovery. However, data are scarce regarding its maternal and neonatal safety. This study seeks to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes between FAUCS and conventional cesarean deliveries at term.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study involving women who underwent scheduled cesarean deliveries at term. We compared a total of 810 cases using the FAUCS technique with 217 cases using conventional cesarean deliveries. Surgical complications, adverse neonatal events, and maternal recovery parameters were compared.

Results

The incidence of overall surgical complications was comparable between the 2 groups, with rates of 1.97% for FAUCS and 1.85% for the conventional cesarean deliveries. The rates of specific complications such as bladder injury (0.1%), bowel injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (1.35%), and postpartum hemorrhage (1%) were consistent with existing literature. Neonatal outcomes, including neonatal acidemia and admission rates to the neonatal intensive care unit, were comparable between the groups and demonstrated favourable comparisons with previously reported data. Notably, women in the FAUCS group required less analgesia, with only 0.8% receiving morphine, as opposed to 38% in the control group. Furthermore, the FAUCS group demonstrated significantly quicker recovery, with 86% achieving autonomy and early discharge at their discretion within 48 hours after operation, in contrast to only 17% in the control group.

Conclusions

When performed by experienced practitioners, FAUCS proves to be a safe procedure, with no increased risk for maternal or neonatal complications. Its significant benefits in terms of enhancing maternal recovery are noteworthy.

法国非住院剖腹产--安全性和恢复特点。
目的:法国腹膜外麻醉剖腹产术(FAUCS)旨在改善患者的分娩体验和恢复。然而,有关其产妇和新生儿安全性的数据却很少。本研究旨在比较FAUCS和传统剖宫产的产妇和新生儿结局:研究设计:一项回顾性队列研究,涉及在足月时接受预定剖宫产的产妇。我们对 810 例使用 FAUCS 技术的产妇和 217 例使用传统剖宫产技术的产妇进行了比较。我们对手术并发症、新生儿不良事件和产妇恢复参数进行了比较:结果:两组的总体手术并发症发生率相当,FAUCS 为 1.97%,传统剖宫产为 1.85%。膀胱损伤(0.1%)、肠损伤(0.1%)、输血(1.35%)和产后出血(1%)等特殊并发症与现有文献一致。新生儿结局(包括新生儿酸血症和新生儿重症监护室入院率)在各组之间具有可比性,与之前报告的数据相比也表现良好。值得注意的是,FAUCS 组产妇镇痛需求较少,仅有 0.8% 的产妇使用吗啡,而对照组的这一比例为 38%。此外,FAUCS 组的恢复速度明显更快,86% 的人在术后 48 小时内实现了自主和提前出院,而对照组只有 17%:结论:事实证明,由经验丰富的医生实施 FAUCS 是一种安全的手术,不会增加产妇或新生儿并发症的风险。FAUCS 在促进产妇恢复方面的显著优势值得关注。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
302
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada (JOGC) is Canada"s peer-reviewed journal of obstetrics, gynaecology, and women"s health. Each monthly issue contains original research articles, reviews, case reports, commentaries, and editorials on all aspects of reproductive health. JOGC is the original publication source of evidence-based clinical guidelines, committee opinions, and policy statements that derive from standing or ad hoc committees of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. JOGC is included in the National Library of Medicine"s MEDLINE database, and abstracts from JOGC are accessible on PubMed.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信