Volume 35, Issue 7 (10-2024)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2024, 35(7): 534-544 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Basharat S, Sadeghpour S. EVALUATION OF COMPLICATIONS OF CESAREAN SECTION DURING THE SECOND STAGE OF LABOR IN PATIENTS REFERRED TO KOWSAR HOSPITAL. Studies in Medical Sciences 2024; 35 (7) :534-544
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6325-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6325-en.html
Reproductive Health Research Center, Clinical Research Institute, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran (Corresponding Author) , besharatsh@yahdr.sadeghpour.s@yahoo.comoo.com
Abstract: (1073 Views)
Background & Aims: Considering the importance of complications caused by cesarean sections performed during the second stage of labor for both the mother and the newborn, as well as its impact on future pregnancies, the purpose of this study is to investigate the complications associated with cesarean sections during the second stage of labor.
Materials & Methods In this case-control study, the case group includes patients who underwent cesarean section in the second stage of labor, and the control group includes patients who underwent elective cesarean section. Finally, the clinical findings obtained between the two groups of cases and controls were analyzed.
Results: Out of 60 mothers in this study, 30 were in the control group and 30 were in the intervention group. The duration of hospitalization for the control and intervention groups was 2.94 ± 1.14 days and 4.03 ± 1.35 days, respectively. Statistically, the difference between the two groups was significant (P = 0.002). Additionally, the average volume of bleeding, as indicated by the number of sterile gauzes used, was 7.9 ± 1.3 gauzes in the control group and 13.9 ± 2.8 gauzes in the intervention group. The difference in the volume of bleeding between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001).
Discussion:Cesarean section in the second stage of labor is associated with higher maternal complications compared to elective cesarean sections. These complications include a higher rate of hemodynamic instability and blood pressure disorders, more bleeding, a higher blood transfusion rate, extension of unintentional uterine incision, uterine atony, sepsis, fever, more antibiotic treatment, more admissions to the ICU, longer hospitalization days after cesarean section, need for hysterectomy, longer operation time, re-laparotomy, postoperative pyrexia, and wound infection.
Materials & Methods In this case-control study, the case group includes patients who underwent cesarean section in the second stage of labor, and the control group includes patients who underwent elective cesarean section. Finally, the clinical findings obtained between the two groups of cases and controls were analyzed.
Results: Out of 60 mothers in this study, 30 were in the control group and 30 were in the intervention group. The duration of hospitalization for the control and intervention groups was 2.94 ± 1.14 days and 4.03 ± 1.35 days, respectively. Statistically, the difference between the two groups was significant (P = 0.002). Additionally, the average volume of bleeding, as indicated by the number of sterile gauzes used, was 7.9 ± 1.3 gauzes in the control group and 13.9 ± 2.8 gauzes in the intervention group. The difference in the volume of bleeding between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001).
Discussion:Cesarean section in the second stage of labor is associated with higher maternal complications compared to elective cesarean sections. These complications include a higher rate of hemodynamic instability and blood pressure disorders, more bleeding, a higher blood transfusion rate, extension of unintentional uterine incision, uterine atony, sepsis, fever, more antibiotic treatment, more admissions to the ICU, longer hospitalization days after cesarean section, need for hysterectomy, longer operation time, re-laparotomy, postoperative pyrexia, and wound infection.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
زنان و زایمان
References
1. Henderson C, Macdonald S. Maye's Midwifery: A Textbook for Midwives. Bailliere Tindall Limited; 2004. [URL:]
2. Danforth DN. Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. [google scholar]
3. Yazdizadeh B, Nedjat S, Mohammad K, Rashidian A, Changizi N, Majdzadeh R. Cesarean section rate in Iran, multidimensional approaches for behavioral change of providers: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11(1):159. [DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-11-159] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Burkman RT. Williams Obstetrics. JAMA 2010 Jul 28;304(4):474-5. [DOI:10.1001/jama.2010.1039]
5. Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J, Rouse D, Spong C. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2010. [URL:]
6. Jamshidi Evanaki F, Khakbazan Z, Babaei GH, Noori S. Reasons of choosing Cesarean section as the delivery method by the pregnant women referred to health treatment centers in Rasht. J Hayat 2004;10(3):50-60. [URL:]
7. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 2001;358(9289):1203-7. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06341-3] [PMID]
8. Fasubaa OB, Ezechi OC, Orji EO, Ogunniyi SO, Akindele ST, Loto OM, et al. Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labour: a randomised comparative study of two methods. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22(4):375-8. [DOI:10.1080/01443610220141290] [PMID]
9. Combs CA, Murphy EL, Laros Jr RK. Factors associated with hemorrhage in cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77(1):77-82. [DOI:10.1097/00006254-199106000-00011]
10. Blickstein I. Difficult delivery of the impacted fetal head during cesarean section: intraoperative disengagement dystocia. J Perinat Med 2004;32(6):465-9. [DOI:10.1515/JPM.2004.152]
11. Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity of caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation compared with caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour. BJOG 2005;112(7):986-90. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00615.x] [PMID]
12. Vitner D, Bleicher I, Levy E, Sloma R, Kadour-Peero E, Bart Y, et al. Differences in outcomes between cesarean section in the second versus the first stages of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32(15):2539-42. [DOI:10.1080/14767058.2018.1440545] [PMID]
13. Sucak A, Çelen Ş, Akbaba E, Soysal S, Moraloglu O, Danışman N. Comparison of nulliparas undergoing cesarean section in first and second stages of labour: a prospective study in a tertiary teaching hospital. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011;2011(1):986506. [DOI:10.1155/2011/986506] [PMID] []
14. Lipschuetz M, Cohen SM, Israel A, Baron J, Porat S, Valsky DV, et al. Sonographic large fetal head circumference and risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218(3):339-e1. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.230] [PMID]
15. Asıcıoglu O, Güngördük K, Yildirim G, Asıcıoglu BB, Güngördük ÖÇ, Ark C, et al. Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;34(7):598-604. [DOI:10.3109/01443615.2014.920790] [PMID]
16. Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, Landon MB, Gilbert S, Spong CY, et al. Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes from primary cesarean delivery during the second compared with first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(4):917-21. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000257121.56126.fe] [PMID]
17. Pergialiotis V, Vlachos DG, Rodolakis A, Haidopoulos D, Thomakos N, Vlachos GD. First versus second stage C/S maternal and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;175:15-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.033] [PMID]
18. Selo-Ojeme D, Sathiyathasan S, Fayyaz M. Caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation versus caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour: comparison of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278(3):245-9. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-007-0548-5] [PMID]
19. Berghella V, Gimovsky AC, Levine LD, Vink J. Cesarean in the second stage: a possible risk factor for subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217(1):1-3. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.019] [PMID] []
20. Cebekulu L, Buchmann EJ. Complications associated with cesarean section in the second stage of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006;95(2):110-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.06.026] [PMID]
21. Gurung P, Malla S, Lama S, Malla A, Singh A. Caesarean section during second stage of labor in a tertiary centre. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2017;15(2):178-81. [DOI:10.3126/jnhrc.v15i2.18210] [PMID]
22. Lipschuetz M, Guedalia J, Cohen SM, Lewkowicz AA, Amsalem H, Karavani G, et al. Unplanned cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor holds higher odds of complications than in the first stage, while similar in primiparas and multiparas. Fetal Diagn Ther 2020;47(7):565-71. [DOI:10.1159/000504573] [PMID]
23. Sung JF, Daniels KI, Brodzinsky L, El-Sayed YY, Caughey AB, Lyell DJ. Cesarean delivery outcomes after a prolonged second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197(3):306-e1. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.07.005] [PMID]
24. Vitner D, Bleicher I, Levy E, Sloma R, Kadour-Peero E, Bart Y, et al. Differences in outcomes between cesarean section in the second versus the first stages of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32(15):2539-42. [DOI:10.1080/14767058.2018.1440545] [PMID]
25. Govender V, Panday M, Moodley J. Second stage caesarean section at a tertiary hospital in South Africa. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010;23(10):1151-5. [DOI:10.3109/14767051003678002] [PMID]
26. Pergialiotis V, Vlachos DG, Rodolakis A, Haidopoulos D, Thomakos N, Vlachos GD. First versus second stage C/S maternal and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;175:15-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.033] [PMID]
27. McKelvey A, Ashe R, McKenna D, Roberts R. Caesarean section in the second stage of labour: a retrospective review of obstetric setting and morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 2010;30(3):264-7. [DOI:10.3109/01443610903572109] [PMID]
28. Unterscheider J, McMenamin M, Cullinane F. Rising rates of caesarean deliveries at full cervical dilatation: a concerning trend. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;157(2):141-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.03.008] [PMID]
29. Gurung P, Malla S, Lama S, Malla A, Singh A. Caesarean section during second stage of labor in a tertiary centre. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2017;15(2):178-81. [DOI:10.3126/jnhrc.v15i2.18210] [PMID]
30. Lipschuetz M, Guedalia J, Cohen SM, Lewkowicz AA, Amsalem H, Karavani G, et al. Unplanned cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor holds higher odds of complications than in the first stage, while similar in primiparas and multiparas. Fetal Diagn Ther 2020;47(7):565-71. [DOI:10.1159/000504573] [PMID]
31. Asıcıoglu O, Güngördük K, Yildirim G, Asıcıoglu BB, Güngördük O, Ark C, et al. Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;34(7):598-604. [DOI:10.3109/01443615.2014.920790] [PMID]
32. Rabiu KA, Adewunmi AA, Akinola OI, Eti AE, Tayo AO. Comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes following caesarean section in second versus first stage of labour in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J 2011;18(3):165-71. [DOI:10.4103/1117-1936.170498] [PMID]
33. Seal SL, Kamilya G, Mukherji J, Bhattacharyya SK, De A, Hazra A. Outcome in second- versus first-stage cesarean delivery in a teaching institution in eastern India. Am J Perinatol 2010;27(6):507-12. [DOI:10.1055/s-0030-1248936] [PMID]
34. Zewdu D, Tantu T, Degemu F, Abdlwehab M. Association between the stage of labour during caesarean delivery with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes among referred mothers to tertiary centres in resource-limited settings. BMJ Open 2023;13(11):e077265. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077265] [PMID] []
35. Omwodo KA, Were E. Comparing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in primary caesarean delivery during first versus second-stage of labour in Kenya: An institution-based cohort study. PLoS One 2023;18(11):e0294266. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0294266] [PMID] []
36. Belay T, Yusuf L, Negash S. A comparative study on first stage versus second stage caesarean section on maternal and perinatal outcome. Ethiop Med J 2014;52(1):1-8. [PMID]
37. Vashi CA, Vijay N, Bhalerao A, Shetty A. Obstetrics Outcomes in Women Undergoing Second-Stage Cesarean Section: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cureus 2023;15(6):e39911. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.39911]
38. Lurie S, Raz N, Boaz M, Sadan O, Golan A. Comparison of maternal outcomes from primary cesarean section during the second compared with first stage of labor by indication for the operation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;182:43-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.025] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
