E-ISSN: 2619-9467

Contents    Cover    Publication Date: 22 Mar 2022
Year 2022 - Volume 32 - Issue 1

Open Access

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
270 Viewed232 Downloaded

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Intrapartum Cesarean Section Rates by Comparing the Data of Patients with Vaginal Delivery: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Full Text PDF  
JCOG. 2022;32(1):13-23
DOI: 10.5336/jcog.2021-87010
Article Language: EN
Copyright Ⓒ 2020 by Türkiye Klinikleri. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to determine intrapartum cesarean section rates of our clinic as well as risk factors for intrapartum cesarean section. We also aimed to identify patients with risk factors beforehand and to reduce the intrapartum cesarean section rates and the complications that might occur due to intrapartum cesarean sections. Material and Methods: A total of 150 patients admitted to our clinic for vaginal delivery that ended up having intrapartum cesarean sections (case group) and 200 patients who had a vaginal delivery (control group) were included in our study retrospectively. Demographic, clinical, and neonatal results of the patients were compared. Results: Intrapartum cesarean section rate was determined to be 23% (150/654). The most common indication for intrapartum cesarean section was fetal distress (48%). We found that low gestational week at delivery, nulliparity, and polyhydramnios were independent risk factors for intrapartum cesarean section. We determined that gravidity and parity were not risk factors for intrapartum cesarean section. It was found that 1st minute APGAR scores of babies of patients with intrapartum cesarean section were significantly lower and that intrapartum cesarean section was an independent risk factor for this particular finding. Conclusion: The possibility of the intrapartum cesarean section should be considered in the labor follow-ups of patients with risk factors. We recommend hospital deliveries where the necessary conditions for the mother and fetus are met.
REFERENCES:
  1. Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(4):705-10. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(1):196. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  2. Zhu BP, Grigorescu V, Le T, Lin M, Copeland G, Barone M, et al. Labor dystocia and its association with interpregnancy interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(1):121-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  3. Myles TD, Santolaya J. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with a prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(1):52-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  4. Pergialiotis V, Bellos I, Antsaklis A, Papapanagiotou A, Loutradis D, Daskalakis G. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following a prolonged second stage of labor: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;252:62-9. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  5. Blankenship SA, Raghuraman N, Delhi A, Woolfolk CL, Wang Y, Macones GA, et al. Association of abnormal first stage of labor duration and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(3):445.e1-445.e15. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  6. McIntyre S, Taitz D, Keogh J, Goldsmith S, Badawi N, Blair E. A systematic review of risk factors for cerebral palsy in children born at term in developed countries. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(6):499-508. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  7. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  8. Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang CC, Driggers RW, Laughon SK. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):33-40. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  9. Tolcher MC, Johnson RL, El-Nashar SA, West CP. Decision-to-incision time and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):536-48. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  10. Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR; Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants*. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1070-82. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  11. Polzin WJ, Lim FY, Habli M, Van Hook J, Minges M, Jaekle R, et al. Use of an amnioport to maintain amniotic fluid volume in fetuses with oligohydramnios secondary to lower urinary tract obstruction or fetal renal anomalies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2017;41(1):51-7. Erratum in: Fetal Diagn Ther. 2017;42(1):80. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  12. Boriboonhirunsarn D, Waiyanikorn R. Emergency cesarean section rate between women with gestational diabetes and normal pregnant women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55(1):64-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  13. Jang W, Flatley C, Greer RM, Kumar S. Comparison between public and private sectors of care and disparities in adverse neonatal outcomes following emergency intrapartum cesarean at term - A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187040. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
  14. Fuma K, Maseki Y, Tezuka A, Kuribayashi M, Tsuda H, Furuhashi M. Factors associated with intrapartum cesarean section in women aged 40 years or older: a single-center experience in Japan. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34(2):216-22. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  15. Crequit S, Korb D, Schmitz T, Morin C, Sibony O. Impact of maternal age on intrapartum caesarean delivery rate in nulliparas with spontaneous labour. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(6):407-11. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  16. Muto H, Ishii K, Nakano T, Hayashi S, Okamoto Y, Mitsuda N. Rate of intrapartum cesarean section and related factors in older nulliparous women at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44(2):217-22. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  17. Nakano T, Muto H, Ishii K, Hayashi S, Okamoto Y, Mitsuda N. Factors associated with emergency cesarean delivery during induction of labor in nulliparous women aged 35 years or older at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44(9):1747-51. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  18. Pritchard N, Lindquist A, Hiscock R, Diksha P, Walker SP, Permezel M. Customised growth charts in large-for-gestational-age infants and the association with emergency caesarean section rate. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59(3):380-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
  19. Flatley C, Gibbons KS, Hurst C, Kumar S. Development of a cross-validated model for predicting emergency cesarean for intrapartum fetal compromise at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;148(1):41-7. [Crossref]  [PubMed]