ULAŞ FİDAN, MUSTAFA ULUBAY, Mehmet Ferdi KINCI, Hilmi MUTLU, Serkan BODUR, Müfit Cemal YENEN

VAKUM YARDIMLI DOĞUM: NEDEN ÇEKİNİYORUZ?

AMAÇ: Vakum ekstraksiyon ile gerçekleşen müdahaleli doğumun kısa dönem klinik sonuçları açısından, sezaryen doğum ile karşılaştırılması.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Vakum Ekstraksiyon, Sezaryen, Postpartum Kanam

VACUUM ASSISTED-BIRTH: WHY DO WE ABSTAIN FROM?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the vacuum assisted- vaginal delivery and cesarean section in terms of short term clinical outcomes.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was executed as a retrospective cohort study at Gülhane Military Medical Academy Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology between 2015 and 2016. Primiparous pregnant women were included in the study. The short term clinical outcomes (feotal pH, blood loss, cost) of the deliveries performed by vacuum extraction due to the diagnosis of prolonged second stage of labor were compared with the deliveries performed by cesarean section due to the diagnosis of cefalo-pelvic disproportion at early stages of labor.RESULTS: The duration of active phase, the amount of blood loss and the transfusion rate were all detected to be higher in the vacuum extraction group (n=22) respect to the cesarean delivery group (n=30). (p<0,05)CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of this showed that the amount of blood loss was higher in the deliveries performed by vacuum extraction, we believe in that this complication can be managed exclusively well by the effect of increased experience. So we are in favor of encouraging obstetricians to apply vacuum extraction in the necessary circumstances to obtain increased clinical experience.

Keywords:

Vacuum Extraction Cesarean Section, , Postpartum Hemorrhage,

PDF

___

KAYNAKLAR Decherney AH, Goodwin TM, Nathan L et al. (Editörler) Güncel Obstetrik ve Jinekoloji Tanı ve Tedavi. Tıraş MB (Çeviri Editörü). In: Incerpi MH. Operatif Doğum. 10uncu Baskı, Ankara: Güneş Tıp Kitabevleri, 2010:461-76.
Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet.2000;11;356(9242):1677-80.
Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Obstetricians’ personalchoice and mode of delivery. Lancet. 1996;24(347):544.
Ulubay M, Öztürk M, Fidan U, et al. Skin incision lengths incaesarean section. Cukurova Med J 2016;41(1):82-86.
Hendler I, Kirshenbaum M, Barg M, et al. Choosing betweenbad, worse and worst: what is the preferred mode of delivery for failure of the second stage of labor?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Sep 14:1-4.
Okulu E., Erdeve Ö. Doğum travmalarına medikolegal yaklaşım. http://www.medikolegalduzlem.comupload/5be58bfa9985041eb0a6e7f67b0d5c21.doc Erişim 20.02.2017
Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL et al. (Editörler) Williams Obstetrik. Yıldırım G. (Çeviri Editörü). In: GÜLER SÇ. Normal Doğum Eylemi. 24üncü Baskı, İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri, 2015:1354-22.
Hamilton EF, Simoneau G, Ciampi A, et al. Descent of thefetal head (station) during the first stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;214(3):360.e1-6.
Bodur S, Gun I, Ozdamar O, et al. Safety of uneventful cesarean section in terms of hemorrhage. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Nov 15;8(11):21653-8.
www.tuik.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi:20.05.2016.
Ryman P, Ahlberg M, Ekéus C. Risk factors for anal sphincter tears in vacuum-assisted delivery. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015;6(3):151-6.
Fitzpatrick M, Behan M, O’Connell PR et al. Randomisedclinical trial to assess anal sphincter function following forceps or vacuum assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG. 2003;110(4):424-9.
Kudish B, Blackwell S, Mcneeley SG et al. Operative vaginaldelivery and midline episiotomy: a bad combination for the perineum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(3):749-54.
Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L et al. Early maternaland neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet. 2001; 13;358(9289):1203-7
Lurie S, Gomel A, Sadan O, et al. The duration of the thirdstage of labor is subject to the location of placental implantation. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2003;56(1):14-6.