Uterine Rupture at 18 Weeks in a Short Interval Pregnancy Following Uterine Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. S57
Author(s):  
CH Waters ◽  
CI Echeazu ◽  
EG Crihfield ◽  
JA Sternchos
Keyword(s):  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Uterine Surgery

scholarly journals Uterine Rupture - Risk Factors and Pregnancy Outcome in Bundelkhand Region

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (27) ◽  
pp. 1961-1965
Author(s):  
Sheela Jain
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Fetal Mortality ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Uterine Surgery ◽  
Grand Multiparity ◽  
Uterine Scar ◽  
Congenital Uterine Anomaly ◽  
Inter Pregnancy Interval

BACKGROUND Uterine rupture is defined as the tearing of the muscular wall of the uterus during pregnancy or labour.1 Often it occurs from the tearing of previous caesarean scar during labour.2 The other known risk factors for uterine rupture include, maternal age, height, body mass index (BMI), education, birth weight, gestational age, induction of labour, instrumental vaginal delivery, interpregnancy interval, congenital uterine anomaly, grand multiparity, previous uterine surgery, fetal macrosomia, fetal malposition, obstructed labour, uterine instrumentation, attempted forceps delivery, external version, and uterine trauma. 2-6This study was done to find out the prevailing risk factors associated with this grave condition in Bundelkhand region, so that mortality and morbidity associated with it could be prevented. METHODS We have studied 37 cases of uterine rupture, operated in our institution from Jan. 2018 to Oct. 2019. During this period a total of 2986 Caesarean sections (CS) were performed. Of these 37 cases, 5 were Nullipara (13.51 %), 16 primipara (31.25 %) and 16 were grand multipara (31.25 %). 24 cases (64.86 %) had previous uterine scar while 13 (35.13 %) had no scar. RESULTS In our study major risk factors for uterine rupture were found to be previous scars (64.68 %). Obstructive labour (23.07 %), malpresentation (7.69 %), grand multiparity (38.46 %) and prolong labour (30.76 %), were responsible for rupture in unscarred uterus. In all cases we first tried to repair the tear and only 9 (24.32 %) needed hysterectomy. In our study 28 patients (75.67 %) required only repair whereas 24.32 % cases needed hysterectomy. Maternal death was just 1 case (2.7 %) and (51.35 %) babies survived. CONCLUSIONS Majority of uterine rupture cases were found in women who had previous CS. So, first CS should be performed after very careful understanding of its indications. 2.7 % maternal mortality and 51.35 % delivery of live birth babies in our study proves that early detection and proper managing of the case can reduce maternal and fetal mortality in uterine rupture cases. KEY WORDS Uterine Rupture, Previous Scar, Inter-Pregnancy Interval

Recurrent uterine rupture in third trimester of pregnancy

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. e241987
Author(s):  
Obiefula Uleanya ◽  
Kate McCallin ◽  
Noor Khanem ◽  
Sabahat Sabir
Keyword(s):  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Good Condition ◽  
Fetal Distress ◽  
Uneventful Recovery ◽  
Third Trimester ◽  
Uterine Surgery ◽  
Index Pregnancy ◽  
Uterine Malformation ◽  
History Of

We report a case of recurrent upper segment uterine rupture in a 31-year-old woman at 32+5/40 weeks of gestation. She had fundal uterine rupture 3 years ago in her first pregnancy at 40 weeks of gestation. There was no history of uterine malformation or prior uterine surgery. However, we noted that she had had three laparoscopic procedures for endometriosis treatment. She was scheduled to have an elective repeat caesarean section at 34+6/40 weeks of gestation in the index pregnancy. Unfortunately, she presented at 32+5/40 weeks with features of acute abdomen and signs of fetal distress. She had a category 1 caesarean section and was found to have fundal uterine rupture at the same site. She had a smooth uneventful recovery following a timely intervention and discharged home on day 5 postoperatively in a good condition with her baby girl.

scholarly journals Risk factors of uterine rupture with a special interest to uterine fundal pressure

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Sturzenegger ◽  
Leonhard Schäffer ◽  
Roland Zimmermann ◽  
Christian Haslinger
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Abnormal Placentation ◽  
Singleton Pregnancy ◽  
Uterine Surgery ◽  
Fundal Pressure

AbstractPurpose:Uterine rupture is a rare but serious event with a median incidence of 0.09%. Previous uterine surgery is the most common risk factor. The aim of our study was to analyze retrospectively women with uterine rupture during labor and to evaluate postulated risk factors such as uterine fundal pressure (UFP).Methods:Twenty thousand one hundred and fifty-two deliveries were analyzed retrospectively. Inclusion criteria were 22 weeks and 0 days–42 weeks and 0 days of gestation, singleton pregnancy and cephalic presentation. Women with primary cesarean section were excluded. A logistic regression analysis adjusting for possible risk factors was conducted and a subgroup analysis of women with unscarred uterus was performed.Results:Twenty-eight cases of uterine rupture were identified (incidence: 0.14%). Uterine rupture was noticed in multipara patients only. In the multivariate analysis among all study patients, only previous cesarean section remained a statistically significant risk factor [adjusted odds ration (adj. OR) 12.52 confidence interval (CI) 95% 5.21–30.09]. In the subgroup analysis among women with unscarred uterus (n=19,415) three risk factors were associated with uterine rupture: UFP (adj. OR 5.22 CI 95% 1.07–25.55), abnormal placentation (adj. OR 20.82 CI 95% 2.48–175.16) and age at delivery >40 years (adj. OR 4.77 CI 95% 1.44–15.85).Conclusions:The main risk factor for uterine rupture in the whole study population is previous uterine surgery. Risk factors in women with unscarred uterus were UFP, abnormal placentation, and age at delivery >40 years. The only factor which can be modified is UFP. We suggest that UFP should be used with caution at least in presence of other supposed risk factors.

scholarly journals Intestinal adhesion due to previous uterine surgery as a risk factor for delayed diagnosis of uterine rupture: a case report

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoyuki Kuwata ◽  
Shigeki Matsubara ◽  
Rie Usui ◽  
Shin-ichiro Uchida ◽  
Naohiro Sata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
Uterine Surgery ◽  
Intestinal Adhesion

scholarly journals Uterine Rupture: an audit to analyze management options, maternal & fetal outcome

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alia Bashir ◽  
Razia Ashraf ◽  
Saima Shakoor ◽  
Fauzia Ali ◽  
Khaliqur Rehman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Fetal Outcome ◽  
Lower Uterine Segment ◽  
Intrauterine Death ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Family Planning Services ◽  
Cephalopelvic Disproportion ◽  
Uterine Surgery ◽  
The Common ◽  
Ruptured Uterus

Study Design: An analysis of 14 cases of ruptured uterus was done during January 2003 to December 2003 in Obstetrics & Gynae Department of Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Objective: The purpose of this Audit was to analyse the different management options, maternal and fetal outcome in uterine rupture. Material and Methods: Total no of births in 2003 was 4840. Total number of ruptured uterus found to be 14 (2.9%/1000) deliveries. Among these incomplete rupture were 3 (21.4%) and complete rupture were 11 (78.4%). Regarding the common sites of uterine rupture lower uterine segment interior surface = 11 (78.4%). Lower uterine segment posterior surface = 2 (14.2%) and upper uterine segment rupture was = 1 (7.14%). The most common cause of uterine rupture was found to be multiparity and injudicious use of oxytocin by TBA in 5 cases. (35.7%) and previous uterine surgery in 5 cases (35.7%). 2 cases (14.21) were due to cephalopelvic disproportion due to hydrocephalus and 2 (14.2%) cases were of malpresentation (transverse lie) mostly handled at home by TBAs. Hysterectomy, total or sub total was done in 7 cases (50%). Repair of uterus was done in 5 cases (35.7%), in 2-cases (14.2%). Bladder repair alongwith uterine repair was done. In two cases (14.2%) of scar dehiscence, repeat cesarean section was done. The maternal mortality was found to be zero, while intrauterine death were 10(71.4%) and alive babies were 4 (28.5%) high perinatal mortality of 71% were found. Conclusion: Ruptured uterus is avoidable catastrophe by proper education, training of patients and TBA`s and by providing effective family planning services, transportation, diagnostic facilities and by reducing the unnecessary caesarean section.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic uterine surgery as a risk factor for uterine rupture during pregnancy

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. e0197307 ◽  
Author(s):  
An-Shine Chao ◽  
Yao-Lung Chang ◽  
Lan-Yan Yang ◽  
Angel Chao ◽  
Wei-Yang Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Uterine Surgery

scholarly journals Risk of Uterine Rupture and Placenta Accreta With Prior Uterine Surgery Outside of the Lower Segment

2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (6) ◽  
pp. 1332-1337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman ◽  
Sharon Gilbert ◽  
Mark B. Landon ◽  
Catherine Y. Spong ◽  
Dwight J. Rouse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Uterine Rupture ◽  
Placenta Accreta ◽  
Lower Segment ◽  
Uterine Surgery

Clinical Science in the 1990s

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Clinical Science ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Real Progress ◽  
General Journal

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.

Benefits of Short-Interval Mammography Questioned

Ob Gyn News ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
DOUG BRUNK
Keyword(s):  
Short Interval
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document