Uterine rupture and epidural analgesia: a spurious risk factor?

2010 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 502-502
Author(s):  
JJ Zwart ◽  
J van Roosmalen
1994 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Rowbottom ◽  
I. Tabrizian

Anaesthesia ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 486-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Rowbottom ◽  
L. A. H. Critchley ◽  
T. Gin

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iccha Uprety ◽  
Gehanath Baral ◽  
Shreena Shrestha

Aims: To determine the case profile of uterine rupture.Methods: Retrospective descriptive study from in-patient record file during two years period.Results: Incidence of uterine rupture recorded was 72 per hundred thousand deliveries (1 in 1390), 25% had ruptured uterus antepartum and 60.7% had live baby.Conclusions: Scarred uterus was the commonest risk factor for rupture uterus and antepartum rupture is not uncommon.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Sturzenegger ◽  
Leonhard Schäffer ◽  
Roland Zimmermann ◽  
Christian Haslinger

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angeliki Antonakou ◽  
Dimitrios Papoutsis

Objective. To investigate whether the use of epidural analgesia during induced labour was a risk factor for instrumental vaginal delivery and caesarean section (CS) delivery. Study Design. This was a retrospective case series of primigravidae women being induced at term for all indications with a normal body mass index (BMI) at booking and under the age of 40 years. Results. We identified 1,046 women who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of which 31.2% had an epidural analgesia. Those with an epidural analgesia had significantly greater maternal age, higher BMI, greater percentage of oxytocin usage, and a longer first and second stage of labour. Women with an epidural analgesia had a higher instrumental delivery (37.9% versus 16.4%; p<0.001) and CS delivery rate (26% versus 10.1%; p<0.001). Multivariable analysis indicated that the use of an epidural was not a risk factor for a CS delivery but was a risk factor for an instrument-assisted delivery (adjusted OR = 3.63; 95% CI: 2.51–5.24; p<0.001). Conclusion. Our study supports the literature evidence that the use of an epidural increases the instrumental delivery rates. It has also added that there is no effect on CS delivery and the observed increase is due to the presence of confounding factors.


F&S Reports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-218
Author(s):  
Hanane Ziadeh ◽  
Pierre Panel ◽  
Arnaud Letohic ◽  
Michel Canis ◽  
Sarah Amari ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document