Serap YALTI, Birgül GÜRBÜZ, Yasemin ÇAKAR, Deniz KÖSE, Oya BALTA, Gazi YILDIRIM, Sadiye EREN

Indications and complications for caesarean section

Sezeryan olgularımızın endikasyon ve komplikasyonlan Amaç:Retrospektif olarak gerçekleştirdiğimiz çalışmamızda sezeryan seksiyo ile gebeliği sonlandırılan 2000 olgunun kondisyon, endikasyon ve oluşan komplikasyonlarını irdeledik. Materyal metod: Sezeryan seksiyo uygulanan 2000 olgunun demografik bulguları, antepartum ve postpartum hemoglobin ve hematokrit düzeyleri, sezeryan endikasyon ve komplikasyonlan, intrapartum tubal sterilizasyon oranları, fetüslerin APGAR skorları ve doğum ağırliklan, hastanede kalış süreleri kaydedildi. Bulgular. Sezeryan doğumlar için endikasyonlanmız sırasıyla şu oranlarda saptandı: Eski sezeryan % 40, fetal distress %23, sefalopelvik uygunsuzluk %16.6, makad prezantasyonu %7.7, ikiz gebelik %6.3,uzamış eylem %5, preeclampsi %4.1, dekolman plasenter %3.4, plasenta previa %1.5, kordon sarkması %1.3, gestasyonel diabet %0.4, fetal anomali %0.1.Olgularımız 15-45 yaşları arasında olup, bunlardan %5.7 olgu 20 yaş altında, %57 si 20-30 yaşlan arasında ve % 33.3 ü de 30 yaş üstünde olarak saptandı.Olguların %16.5 i primipar, %83.5 i ise multipar idi. %4.1 i ne kan tmnsfüzyonu yapıldı, %1.3 ünde yara enfeksiyonu,% 0.7 sinde de hematom gözlendi. Son 3 yıl içinde hastanemizde sezeryan oranlan artmış olup; bu oran 2001 yıhnda %23.36, 2002 de %30.77, 2003 de ise %32.99 kaydedilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Sezaryen, Ameliyat sonrası komplikasyonlar, Geriyedönük çalışma, Doğum, obstetrik

Sezeryan olgularımızın endikasyon ve komplikasyonları

Objective: Aretrospective surveywas conducted to determine the conditions, indications and complications for caesarean section in 2000 patients. Study Design: 2000 women who undenvent caesarean section in our unit were includedin this study. Standard demographic variables, antepartum and postpartum hemoglobin and hematocritlevels, the indications and complications of caesarean section, intrapartum tubalsterilizationrates, APGAR levels and birth-weights offetuses, the meanlength of staying in hospital were recorded. Resuts: The leading or the major indications rates for abdominal deliveries were: repeat caesarean section 30%, fetal distress 23%, cephalo-pelvic disproportionl6.6%, breechpresantation7.7%, twin pregnancy 6.3%, prolonged labor 5%, preeclampsia 4.1%, placenta previal.5%, abruptio-placentae 3.4%, umblical cordprolapsus 1.3%, gestational diabetes mellitus 0.4, fetal anomalies 0.1%. Age ranged from 15-45 years, 5.70% were women under the age of 20, and 57% were betıveen 20 and 30 years of age and 33.3% were women elder than the age of 30. 16.5% of the mothers were primiparae, 83.5% were multiparae. 4.1% ofthem had blood transfusion. 1.3% had wound infections, 0.7% had hematomas. Analysis of caesarean sections in the last three years showed an increasing rate, from 27.3.6% in 2001 to 30.77% in 2002 and 32.99% in 2003. Conclusion: The proportion of pregnancies delivered by caesarean section increased for all indications. The matemal morbidity rate following caesarean deliveryis relatively low.

Keywords:

Cesarean Section, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Delivery, Obstetric,

___

1. Notzon FC, PlacekPf, TaffelSM. Comparison of national caesarean section rates.N EnglJ Med 1987; 316:386-389
2. Murray SF, Seranı Pradenas F. Caesarean birth trends in Chile, 1986-1994.Birth 1997; 24: 258-263
3. Nielsen TF, Otterblad Olausson P, Ingemarsson I.The caesarean section rate in Sweden:the end of the rise.Birth 1994; 21:1-3
4. Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran B.W.C. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population- based crass sectional study. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2003; 110:106-111
5. MenardMK. Caesarean delivery rates in the US- the 1990's. Controversies in Labor Management
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999;26:275-286
6. US Department of Health and Human Services
TaskForce-1981. Caesarean Childbirth. National Institutes of Health Publication No.82-2067, p. 7
7. Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F
The risk of lowering the cae s are an-de livery rate
NEnglJ Med 1999; 340: 54-7
8. Backe B, Heggestad T, Lie T.The epidemic of Caesarean section: has it reached Norway? Tidsskr NorLaegeforen. 2003 ;11:1522-4
9. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? BestPractRes Clin Obstet Gynaecol
2001 ; 15:179-94
10. Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S. Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15:l-15 11. Gilbert WM, Hicks S M, Boe NM, Daniels en B, Vaginal versus cesarean delivery for breech presentation in California: a population-based study Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102:911-7
12. SchindlM, BirnerP, Reingrabner M, Joura E, Husslein P, Langer M.Elective cesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience.Ada Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 ;82:834-40
13. Sikdar K, Kundu S, Mandal GS. Maternal mortality following caesarean sections.) Obstet Gynaecol India. 1979;4: 815-23
14. MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I, Annan B.Indications for caesarean section in a consultant obstetric unit over three decades.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 ;3: 233-8
15. Physician cesarean delivery rates and risk- adjusted perinatal outcomes .Obstet Gynecol 2003; 6: 1204-12
16. LIT, Rhoads GG, Smulian J,Demissie K, Wartenberg D, Kruse L. Shiono PH, McNellis D,Rhoads GG. Reasons for the rising cesarean delivery rates.1978-1984. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 696- 700
17. Abu-Heija A, el-JalladF, Ziadeh S. Dystocia: is it a major indication for caesarean section? Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1998;25:51-3
18. Mikulandra F, Perisa M an at al. When is fetal macrosomia (>or=4500g) an indication for caesarean section?Zentralbl Gynakol. 1996;8: 441-7
19. Fasubaa OB, OgunniyiSO, Dare FO, Isawumi Al, EzechiOC, OrjiEO.Uncomplicated Caesarean section: is prolonged hospital stay necessary? East AfrMedJ. 2000 8: 448-51