روش زایمان و پیامدهای مادری در زنان مراجعه‌کننده به بیمارستان‌های شهر سنندج 1392

نوع مقاله : اصیل پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه زنان و مامایی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان، سنندج، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه مامایی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان، سنندج، ایران.

3 استادیار گروه آمار و اپیدمیولوژی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان، سنندج، ایران.

4 دانشیار گروه زنان و مامایی، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان، سنندج، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه: اگرچه عوارض پس از زایمان طبیعی و سزارین شناخته شده است، اما تصمیم در مورد بهترین نوع زایمان (واژینال در برابر سزارین) هنوز از طرف متخصصین و از نظر تجارب زنان زایمان کرده اختلاف نظر دارد. مطالعه حاضر با هدف بررسی روش زایمان و پیامدهای مادری آن در بیمارستان‌های شهر سنندج انجام شد.
روش کار: این مطالعه مقطعی از اردیبهشت 1391 لغایت اردیبهشت سال 1392 بر روی 5984 نفر از زنان مراجعه‌کننده جهت انجام زایمان به بخش زایمان بیمارستان‌های شهر سنندج انجام شد. ابزار گردآوری داده ها، پرسشنامه محقق ساخته و شامل سه بخش بود: بخش اول شامل مشخصات فردی واحدهای پژوهش، بخش دوم در ارتباط با مشکلات همراه با حاملگی فعلی و بخش سوم شامل روش زایمان و پیامدهای مادری زایمان تا زمان ترخیص (خونریزی، پارگی پرینه، پارگی سرویکس، چسبندگی غیرطبیعی جفت، دریافت آنتی بیوتیک، ترانسفوزیون خون، هیسترکتومی، بستری در ICU و مرگ مادری) بود. تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها با استفاده از نرم افزار آماری SPSS(نسخه 20) و آزمون های کای دو و مدل رگرسیون لجستیگ چندگانه انجام شد. میزان p کمتر از 05/0 معنی‌دار در نظر گرفته شد.
یافته ها: در مجموع در طول مطالعه 5984 زایمان در بیمارستان‌های شهر سنندج انجام شده بود که از این تعداد 3460 زایمان (82/57%) به صورت واژینال و 2524 زایمان (18/42%) به روش سزارین انجام شده بود. بین روش زایمان و پیامدهای زایمان مانند خونریزی شدید، پارگی سرویکس، استفاده از آنتی بیوتیک و بستری شدن در بخش ICU ارتباط آماری معنی‌داری مشاهده شد (001/0=p).
نتیجه‌گیری: در مطالعه حاضر عوارضی مانند خونریزی، پارگی پرینه، پارگی سرویکس، بستری شدن در ICU در زایمان واژینال + اپی‌زیاتومی بیشتر از سزارین بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Modes of delivery and maternal outcomes in women referred to Sanandaj Hospitals in 2013

نویسندگان [English]

  • Masoumeh Rezaei 1
  • Farnaz Zand Vakili 1
  • Ronak Shahavi 2
  • Daem Roshani 3
  • Fariba Farhadifar 4
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kordestan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kordestan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Kordestan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
4 Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kordestan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Although the complications of vaginal delivery and cesarean section have been known, but decision about best mode of delivery (vaginal delivery versus cesarean section) is still controversial from specialists' point of view and the woman experiencing labor. This study was performed with aim to determine mode of delivery and maternal outcomes in Sanandaj hospitals.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 5984 women referred to delivery section of Sanandaj hospitals for delivery from April 2012 to April 2013. Data collection instrument was a researcher made questionnaire including three parts: the first part included demographic characteristics of the subjects, the second part about the problems associated with current pregnancy, and third part included mode of delivery and maternal outcomes of delivery until discharge (bleeding, perineal laceration, rupture of cervix, abnormal placental attachment, receiving antibiotics, blood transfusion, hysterectomy, ICU admission and maternal death). Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 20), and chi-square test and Multiple logistic regression model. PResults: During the study, a total of 5984 deliveries were conducted in Sanandaj hospitals that among them, 3460 (57.82%) were vaginal and 2524 (42.18%) were cesarean section. There was a statistically significant association between mode of delivery and delivery outcomes such as severe hemorrhage, rupture of cervix, use of antibiotics and ICU admission (P=0.001).
Conclusion: In this study, complications such as bleeding, perineal laceration, rupture of the cervix, ICU admission and episiotomy were higher in vaginal delivery than cesarean section.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Maternal outcomes
  • Vaginal delivery
  • Cesarean section

مراجع

  1. Mossadegrad A, Malekiha Z. Cesarean rate and factors in teaching hospitals of Isfahan. Sci Med J Military Organ Islamic Rep 2008; 23:161-9. (Persian).
  2. International conference on population and development (ICPD). United Nations Population Fund. Available at: URL: http://www.unfpa.org/icpd; 2004.
  3. Health Ministry. Sima Report. Health of Islamic Republic of Iran (IAD). Available at: URL: http://ird.behdasht.gov.ir/ pag49; 2002.
  4. McCurt C, Weaver J, Statham H, Beake S, Gamble J, Creedy DK. Elective caesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth 2007; 34(1):65-79.
  5.  Bryanton J, Gagnon AJ, Johnston C, Hatem M. Predictors of women's perceptions of the childbirth experience. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008; 37(1):24-34.
  6. Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Ludlow J, Benness C, Phipps H. Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: the views of pregnant women and clinicians. BJOG 2008; 15(12):1494-502.
  7. Hantoushzadeh S, Rajabzadeh A, Saadati A, Mahdanian A, Ashrafinia N, Khazardoost S, et al. Caesarean or normal vaginal delivery: overview of physicians' self-preference and suggestion to patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009; 280(1):33-7.
  8. Torloni MR, Daher S, Betrán AP, Widmer M, Montilla P, Souza JP, et al. Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women’s magazines: a 20-year review. BMJ 2011; 342(276):1-7.
  9. Allameh Z. The frequency of cesarean section in rural and urban areas of Iran. J Res Med Sci 2000; 5:27-31.
  10. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerrioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006; 33(4):270-7.
  11. Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Gissler M. Severe maternal morbidity and the mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87(6):662-8.
  12.  Koroukian SM. Relative risk of postpartum complications in the Ohio Medicaid population: vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Med Care Res Rev 2004; 61(2):203–24.
  13. Larsson C, Saltvedt S, Wiklund I, Andolf E. Planned vaginal delivery versus planned caesarean section: short-term medical outcome analysed according to intended mode of delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33(8):796–802.
  14. Riskin-Mashiah S. Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104(3):633-7.
  15. Liu S, Heaman M, Joseph KS, Liston RM, Huang L, Sauve R, et al. Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(4):836-42.
  16.  Lee SY, Lee KA, Rankin SH, Weiss SJ, Alkon A. Sleep disturbance, fatigue, and stress among Chinese-American parents with ICU hospitalized infants. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2007; 28(6):593-605.
  17. Lee SY. Validating the general sleep disturbance scale among Chinese American parents with hospitalized infants. J Transcult Nurs 2007; 18(2):111-7.
  18. Maloni JA, Park S. Postpartum symptoms after antepartum bed rest. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2006; 34(2):163-71.
  19. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. First-birth cesarean and placental abruption or previa at second birth (1). Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97(5 Pt 1):765–9.
  20.  Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003; 362(9398):1779–84.
  21. MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an “Intention-to-treat” model. Birth 2008; 35(1):3–8.
  22.  Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007; 176(4):455–60.
  23. Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(3):477–82.
  24.  Liu S, Heaman M, Joseph KS, Liston RM, Huang L, Sauve R, et al. Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(4):836–42.
  25.  Lumbiganon P, Loopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souaza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-2008. Lancet 2010; 375(9713):490-9.
  26. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006; 367(9525):1819-29.
  27. Torkzahrani S. Commentary: childbirth education in Iran. J Perinat Educ 2008; 17(3):51-4.
  28. Macones GA. Clinical outcomes in VBAC attempts: what to say to patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(1):1-2.
  29. Roberts CL, Ford JB, Algert CS, Bell JC, Simpson JM, Morris JM. Trends in adverse maternal outcomes during childbirth: a population-based study of severe maternal morbidity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9:7.
  30. Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breart G. Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108(3 Pt 1):541-8.
  31.  Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM. Materal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(5 Pt 1):907-12.
  32.  International Confederation of Midwives, International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians. Joint Policy Statement: management of the third stage of labor to prevent post-partum hemorrhage. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49(1):76-7.
  33. Angioli R, Gomez-Marin O, Cantuaria G, Osullivan MJ. Severe perineal lacerations during vaginal delivery: the University of Miami experience. AM J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182(5):1083-5.
  34. Eason E, Labrecque M, Wells G, Feldman P. Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95(3):464-71.
  35. Signorello LB, Harlow BL, Chekos AK, Repke JT. Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2000; 320(7227):86-90.
  36. American Collegue of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin No .71 Episiotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:956-62.
  37. Andrews V, Sultan AH, Thakar R, Jones PW. Risk factors for obstetric and sphincter injury: a prospective study. Birth 2006; 33(2):117-22.
  38. Dannecker C, Hillemanns P, Strauss A, Hasbargen U, Hepp H, Anthuber C. Episiotomy and perineal tears presumed to be imminent: randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 83(4):364-8.
  39. Rezaei M, Shahoei R, Shahghebi S, Afkhamzadeh A, Farhadi F. Comparison of perineal lacerations in routine vs. selective mediolateral episiotomy among women referring to the obstetrics department of besat hospital in Sanandaj in 2011.Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2014; 17(116):8-14. (Persian).
  40.  Landy HJ, Laughon SK, Bailit JL, Kominiarek MA, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, Ramirez M, et al. Characteristics associated with severe perineal and cervical lacerations during vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117(3):627-35.
  41. Melamed N, Ben-Haroush A, Chen R, Kaplan B, Yogev Y. Intrapartum cervical lacerations: characteristics, risk factors and effects on subsequent pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200(4):388.el-4.
  42. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27–29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(6):1386-97.
  43.  Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Garroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health. BMC Med 2010; 8:71.
مجله زنان، مامایی و نازایی ایران
دوره 18، شماره 185
هفته سوم اسفند ماه 1394
اسفند 1394
صفحه 1-9

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار