Fetal Outcome in Elective versus Emergency Caesarean Section at a Tertiary Care Center
Authors/Creators
- 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GMC, Patiala, Punjab- 147001
- 2. Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GMC, Patiala, Punjab-147001
- 3. Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GMC, Patiala, Punjab - 147001
- 4. Junior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GMC, Patiala, Punjab - 147001
- 5. Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Adesh Medical college and hospital, Mohri, Shahbad, Haryana
Description
Objective: To study the fetal outcome in Elective versus Emergency Caesarean section at a tertiary care center. Material and Method: The study spanned one year and included patients undergoing caesarean sections at our tertiary referral center, regardless of their gestation age. The study was conducted after the approval of institutional ethics committee. In this study two groups of pregnant females were studied. Group 1: Women who underwent elective caesarean section. Group 2: Women who underwent emergency caesarean section. Results: There was total 3296 deliveries during the study period. Among all deliveries, 1306 women with singleton pregnancies underwent LSCS. There were 917(70.2%) emergency LSCS and 389(29.8%) elective LSCS. Fetal outcomes were recorded and compared between elective and emergency LSCS group. In the present study, Fetal complications like respiratory distress, meconium aspiration syndrome and NICU admissions >24 hours were significantly more in emergency group as compared to elective group. Mean birth weight in elective group was 2.58±0.47 kg and 2.43±0.56 kg in emergency group, which was statistically significant. 1 minute APGAR score was <6 in 2.1% subjects in elective group as compared to 6.8% subjects in emergency group. 5 minutes APGAR score was <6 in 0.8% subjects in elective group as compared to 3.3% subjects in emergency group. It was found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: Fetal complications like respiratory distress, meconium aspiration syndrome and NICU admissions >24 hours were significantly more in emergency group as compared to elective group. There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of transient tachypnea of newborn in the two groups.
Abstract (English)
Objective: To study the fetal outcome in Elective versus Emergency Caesarean section at a tertiary care center. Material and Method: The study spanned one year and included patients undergoing caesarean sections at our tertiary referral center, regardless of their gestation age. The study was conducted after the approval of institutional ethics committee. In this study two groups of pregnant females were studied. Group 1: Women who underwent elective caesarean section. Group 2: Women who underwent emergency caesarean section. Results: There was total 3296 deliveries during the study period. Among all deliveries, 1306 women with singleton pregnancies underwent LSCS. There were 917(70.2%) emergency LSCS and 389(29.8%) elective LSCS. Fetal outcomes were recorded and compared between elective and emergency LSCS group. In the present study, Fetal complications like respiratory distress, meconium aspiration syndrome and NICU admissions >24 hours were significantly more in emergency group as compared to elective group. Mean birth weight in elective group was 2.58±0.47 kg and 2.43±0.56 kg in emergency group, which was statistically significant. 1 minute APGAR score was <6 in 2.1% subjects in elective group as compared to 6.8% subjects in emergency group. 5 minutes APGAR score was <6 in 0.8% subjects in elective group as compared to 3.3% subjects in emergency group. It was found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: Fetal complications like respiratory distress, meconium aspiration syndrome and NICU admissions >24 hours were significantly more in emergency group as compared to elective group. There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of transient tachypnea of newborn in the two groups.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue11,Article75.pdf
Files
(344.9 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:ace9e27392bcd1191fc8ff01eb8d5d1a
|
344.9 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-10-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue11,Article75.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Cunningham FG, Hauth JC, Strong JD, Kappus SS. Infectious morbidity followingcesarean section. Comparison of two treatment regimens. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Dec 1; 52(6):656-61. 2. Minkoff HL, Schwarz RH. The rising cesarean section rate: can it safely be reversed? Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Aug 1; 56(2):135-43. 3. Yudkin PL, Redman CW. Caesarean section dissected, 1978–1983. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Feb; 93(2):135-44. 4. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Kosary CL. U.S. cesarean section rates 1990: an update. Birth. 1992 Mar; 19(1):21-2. 5. Bergholt T, Ostberg B, Legarth J, Weber T. Danish obstetricians' personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Jan 1; 83(3):262-6. 6. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jul 1;199(1):36-e1. 7. Najam R, Sharma R. Maternal and fetal outcomes in elective and emergency caesarean sections at a teaching hospital in North India. A retrospective study. J Adv Res Med Sci Former J Adv Res Biol Sci 2013; 5(1):5-9. 8. Finger C. Caesarean section rates skyrocket in Brazil. The Lancet. 2003 Aug 23; 362(9384): 628. 9. Khawaja NP, Yousaf T, Tayyeb R. Analysis of caesarean delivery at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2004 Feb 1; 24(2):139-41. 10. Conroy K, Koenig AF, Yu YH, Courtney A, Lee HJ, Norwitz ER. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery: 10 strategies to reduce risk. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 5(2):69. 11. Nag G, Padmalatha VV, Rao SR. Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Emergency versus Elective Caesarean Sections at a Tertiary Healthcare Setting in Southern India: A Prospective Observational Study. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2018; 10:413-8. 12. Farine D, Shepherd D, Robson M, Gagnon R, Hudon L, Basso M et al. Classification of caesarean sections in Canada: the modified robson criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012 Oct 1; 34(10):976-9. 13. Kaplanoglu M, Bulbul M, Kaplanoglu D, Bakacak SM. Effect of multiple repeat cesarean sections on maternal morbidity: data from southeast Turkey. Medical science monitors Med Sci Mont. 2015; 21:1447. 14. Tighe D, Sweezy S. Caesarean birth: preparation, considerations and complications. Perinatal Neonatal Nurs. 1990; Mar (3):14-30. 15. Elveđi-Gašparović V, Klepac-Pulanić T, Peter B. Maternal and fetal outcome in elective versus emergency caesarean section in a developing country. Coll Antropol. 2006 Mar 16; 30(1):113-8. 16. Suwal A, Shrivastava VR, Giri A. Maternal and fetal outcome in elective versus emergency caesarean section. Journal of the Nepal Medical Association. 2013; 52:563–6. 17. Darnal N, Dangal G. Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Emergency versus Elective Caesarean Section. J Nepal Health Res Counc.2020 Sep 7; 18(2):186-9. 18. Soren R, Maitra N, Patel PK, Sheth T. Elective versus emergency caesarean section: maternal complications and neonatal outcomes. J Nurs Health Sci. 2016; 5(5):2320.