Assessment of the Results of using Partogram in Labor Management

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran.

2 Instructor of Midwifery, Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Manner and time of intervening labor management causes difficulty in decision making in labor cares. This study was conducted to assess the result of using partogram in labor management and recognition of abnormal labor and appropriate intervention time.
Methods: In this prospective clinical trial, 200 primigravid women who admitted in Alborz hospital of Karaj in 1995-1996 were randomly divided into case group and control group. Partogram was recorded for all patients and in the case group, decision-making was based upon the resulting curve, but in control group decision making was based on routine care without using partogram. Collected data were analyzed by using SPSS 13 software and t-test, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test.
Results: Mean length of first stage of labor in case group (208.71±33.8) was significantly lower than control group (289.26±20.3) (P=0.0001), but mean length of second stage of labor was not significantly different in two groups. Total length of labor was significantly shorter in case group (P=0.0001). There was significantly higher rate of cesarean section in case group (p=0.042). First minute Apgar score was significantly higher in the case group (p=0.014).
Conclusion: Partogram, causes a decrease in length of labor and corrects the time of intervention and is beneficial in better decision making in labor management and therefore reduces the complications of abnormal and prolonged labor and is useful as a means of labor management in correct decision making in labor cares.

Keywords

References

1. Stokowski LA. Make every  mother and child count­ World Health Day. Adv  Neonatal Care  2005 
Jun;5(3):124.
2. Park JE. Textbook of prevelantive and social medicine. 4th ed. New Yorh:McGraw­Hill;1998.
3. Guillbaurd  J.Contraception  and  sexual health. Best practice  and research. Clin  Obstet Gynecol 2009;
23:163­4.
4. Backman  G. Health  system and  the right to health: an  assessment of 194  countries. Lancet 2008 
Dec;372:2047.
5. Faraser DM, Cooper MA. Myles textbook for midwives. 14th ed. Edinburgh:Churchill Livingston;2003. 6. Cuningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Glistrap L, Westrom KD. Williams obtetrics. 22nd  ed.
Newyork:McGraw­Hill;2005.
7. Drif JO, Magowan B. Clinical obstetric and gynecology. Edinburgh:Saunders;2004.
8. Marandi A, Azizi F, Larigani B, Jamshidi HR. Health in Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran:Unisef:1988.
9. Javed I, Bhutta S, Shoaib T. Role of partogram in preventing prolonged labour. J Park Med Assoc 2007 
Aug;57(8):408­11.
10. Lavender T, Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw S. Effect of different partogram action lines  on birth  outcomes: a 
randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006 Aug;108(2):295­302.
11. De  Groof D, Vangeenderrhuysen  C, Juncker T, Favi RA. [Impact of the  introduction  of partogram on  maternal and perinatal mortality. Study performed  in a maternity clinic in Niameny, Niger] [Article in  French]. Ann Soc Belg Med Trop 1995 Dec;75(4):321­30.
12. Tay SK, Yong TT. Visual effect of partogram designs on the management and outcome of labour. Aust NZ 
J Obstet Gynecol 1996 Nov:36(4):395­400.
13. Impey L, Hobson J, O’herlihy C. Graphic analaysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of
labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2000 Aug;183(2):438­43.
14. Shakibazade  E. Effect of partograph  in delivery length and prenatal outcome  in nulliparus. { A paper]. Tehran:Tarbiyat Modares University;1998.
15. Cardozo LD, Gibb DM, Studd JW, Vasant RV, Cooper DJ. Predictive value of cervimetric labour patterns 
in primigravidae. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1982 Jan;89:33­8.
16. Basu JK, Buchman EJ, Basa D. Role of a second stage  partogram in predicting the  outcome  of normal
labour. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol 2009 Apr;49(2):158­61.
 
17. Kambarami RA, Chirenje MZ, Rusakaniko S. Perinatal practices  in two rural districts  of Zimbawe: a  community persepective. Cent Afr J Med 2000 Apr;46(4):96­100.
18. Petterson  KO, Svensson  ML, Christensson  K. Evaluation  of an  adapted model of the  World  Health 
Organization  partograph used  by Angolan  midwivers in a peripheral delivery unit. Midwifery 2000 
Jun;16(2):82­8.
19. Bosse  G, Massawe S, Jahn A. The partograph in daily practice: it’s quality that matters. Int J Gynecol
Obstet 2002 Jun;77(3):243­4.
20. Sizer AR, Evans J, Bailey SM, Wiener J. A second­stage  partogram. Obstet Gynecol 2000 Nov;96(5  Pt
1):678­83  . 21. Rogers R, Gilson GJ, Miller AC, Izquierdo LE, Curet LB, Quails CR. Active management of labor: does it make a difference?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997 Sep;177(3):599­605.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics