Primipar ve Multipar Kadınlarda Vakum Destekli Doğumun Karşılaştırmalı Olarak Analizi
PDF

Özgün Araştırma

Primipar ve Multipar Kadınlarda Vakum Destekli Doğumun Karşılaştırmalı Olarak Analizi

Bagcilar Med Bull 2025;10(4):372-378 DOI: 10.4274/BMB.galenos.2025.80775
,
PDF
İzin

Öz

Amaç

Vakum yardımlı vajinal doğum gerçekleştiren primigravid ve multigravid kadınlar arasında maternal ve neonatal sonuçlar karşılaştırılarak obstetrik sonuçların değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Yöntem: Çalışma retrospektif olarak 65 vakum yardımlı vajinal doğum yapan gebenin obstetrik sonuçları incelenmiş, primigravid ve multigravid gruplar arasında maternal ve neonatal sonuçlar istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırılmıştır.

Bulgular

Çalışmada travay süresi, yenidoğan doğum ağırlığı ve baş çevresi açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı fark tespit edilmiştir (p<0,05). Primigravid kadınlarda travay süresi belirgin şekilde daha uzunken, multigravid kadınlarda doğum ağırlığı ve baş çevresi daha büyük bulunmuştur. Epizyotomi oranları primigravid grubunda anlamlı derecede daha yüksekti (p<0,001). Bununla birlikte, yenidoğan yoğun bakım ünitesi kabulü, neonatal komplikasyonlar ve maternal komplikasyonlar açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır (p>0,05).

Sonuç

Bu çalışma, vakum yardımlı vajinal doğum sonuçları üzerinde paritenin etkisini ortaya koymuş; neonatal sonuçlar açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı fark olmadığını göstermiştir. Vakum yardımı, doğum sürecini hızlandırarak asfiksiye neden olmaktan ziyade asfiksiyi önleyici bir müdahale olarak değerlendirilebilir. Vakum yardımlı vajinal doğumlar, gereksiz sezaryen doğumların önlenmesinde etkili bir alternatif olarak kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Apgar, asfiksi, komplikasyonlar, normal doğum, vakum yardımlı doğum

Kaynakça

1

Bahl R, Hotton E, Crofts J, Draycott T. Assisted vaginal birth in 21st century: current practice and new innovations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3S):S917-S931.

2

Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2016;123(4):559-568.

3

Krizman E, Grzebielski P, Antony KM, Sampene E, Shanahan M, Iruretagoyena JI, et al. Operative vaginal delivery is a safe option in women undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean. AJP Rep. 2019;9(2):e190-e194.

4

Muraca GM, Ralph LE, Christensen P, D’Souza R, Geoffrion R, Lisonkova S, et al. Maternal and neonatal trauma during forceps and vacuum delivery must not be overlooked. BMJ. 2023;383:e073991.

5

O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD005455. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9:CD005455.

6

Bols EM, Hendriks EJ, Berghmans BC, Baeten CG, Nijhuis JG, de Bie RA. A systematic review of etiological factors for postpartum fecal incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(3):302-314.

7

Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. SBU Systematic Review Summaries. Anal sphincter injuries: a systematic review and assessment of medical, social and ethical aspects. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2016.

8

Pergialiotis V, Bellos I, Fanaki M, Vrachnis N, Doumouchtsis SK. Risk factors for severe perineal trauma during childbirth: an updated meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;247:94-100.

9

Hobson S, Cassell K, Windrim R, Cargill Y. No. 381-assisted vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(6):870-882.

10

Bofill JA, Rust OA, Schorr SJ, Brown RC, Roberts WE, Morrison JC. A randomized trial of two vacuum extraction techniques. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(5 Pt 1):758-762.

11

Caughey AB, Sandberg PL, Zlatnik MG, Thiet MP, Parer JT, Laros RK Jr. Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(5 Pt 1):908-912.

12

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Instrumental vaginal birth. East Melbourne: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2016.

13

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics. The Apgar Score, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2015. Number 644.

14

Korell M, King S, Hepp H. Untersuchungen an einem neuen saugglockensystem mit kugelgelenk und abrisswarnung--in-vitro-studien und klinische anwendung [A new vacuum extraction system with a ball joint and detachment warning--in vitro studies and clinical use]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2000;204(3):93-98. German.

15

Huber M, Malers E, Tunón K. Pelvic floor dysfunction one year after first childbirth in relation to perineal tear severity. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):12560.

16

Fodstad K, Laine K, Räisänen S. Obstetric anal sphincter injuries during instrumental vaginal delivery: an observational study based on 18-years of real-world data. BJOG. 2024;131(13):1824-1831.

17

Jiang H, Qian X, Carroli G, Garner P. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):CD000081.

18

Okeahialam NA, Wong KW, Jha S, Sultan AH, Thakar R. Mediolateral/lateral episiotomy with operative vaginal delivery and the risk reduction of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(6):1393-1405.

19

Ankarcrona V, Zhao H, Jacobsson B, Brismar Wendel S. Obstetric anal sphincter injury after episiotomy in vacuum extraction: an epidemiological study using an emulated randomised trial approach. BJOG. 2021;128(10):1663-1671.

20

Desplanches T, Marchand-Martin L, Szczepanski ED, Ruillier M, Cottenet J, Semama D, et al. Mediolateral episiotomy and risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries and adverse neonatal outcomes during operative vaginal delivery in nulliparous women: a propensity-score analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):48.

21

Papageorgiou S, Brodowski L, Huppertz H, Bohnhorst B, Flentje M, von Kaisenberg C. Impact of introducing PROMPT on permanent brachial plexus injury and tears III°/IV° in shoulder dystocia: the hanover cohort study. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2024;2024:8712553.

22

Murphy DJ, Strachan BK, Bahl R; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Assisted vaginal birth: green-top guideline No. 26. BJOG. 2020;127(9):e70-e112.

23

Yakasai IA, Abubakar IS, Yunus EM. Vacuum delivery in a tertiary institution, in Northern Nigeria: a 5-year review. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;5(4):213-218.

24

Shrestha B, Shrestha S, Thapa B. Vacuum assisted vaginal delivery in singleton term pregnancies: short term maternal and neonatal outcome in a tertiary hospital of Nepal. J Lumbini Medical Coll. 2016;4(2):104-107.

25

McQuivey RW, Block JE. Vacuum-assisted cesarean section. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:151-155.

26

Gupta S, Bhagat S. Retrospective study of maternal and perinatal outcomes of instrumental vaginal delivery in tertiary care hospital. International Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2023;7(1):166-168.

27

Sultana MA, Suprada K, Bahadur BR, Rao KG. Instrumental deliveries and its outcome in tertiary care center. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2024;13(6):1527-1530.