Background:The paperless partogram refers to monitoring progress of labor and arriving at an accurate decision for intervention to ensure safe delivery. It needs no graph paper, no extra time to do it. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of using the paperless partograph versus the original partograph on labor outcomes in Women's Health Hospital. Sampling : Random sample of 370 participants. Setting: The study was conducted from April 15th , 2016 to September 30 th , 2016 in Women Health Hospital, Assiut University, Egypt, at reception (emergency ) unit. Design method: quesi-experimental design. Study subjects: This study was randomly assign women into 2 groups. Group (1): was allocated to modified WHO partograph and Group (2): was allocated to paperless partograph. Results : Comparison between studied groups as regards time taken for first stage and second stage revealed a statistical significant difference at P. value (<0.017 & <0.001) respectively. For mode of delivery revealed a statistical significant difference at P. value(<0.0152). For postpartum complications revealed a statistical significant difference at P. value(<0.003).Conclusion: The Paperless partograph was effective positively than the WHO modified partograph in the management of labor. Recommendations: This method should be implemented as essential part of care in all health facilities, and used by all clinical training sites to give trainees (doctors and nurses midwives) an opportunity to use it.
Background: Low back pain is a common complaint after cesarean delivery, different causes may be involved however they are poorly understood due to many confounders. Methodology: We performed this retrospective cohort study to assess the intensity of low back pain among 38 women (26 of them underwent cesarean delivery, assessed after 6 to 12 weeks from delivery date, they were classified into: epidural anaesthetic group (Group A) n.=6, spinal anaesthetic group (Group B) n.=13, general anaesthetic group (Group C) n.=7 and they were either primiparous or multiparous who did not receive any type of anaesthesia for at least one year prior to the last obstetric anaesthesia while the other 12 women were the control group (Group D) who didn’t experience any pregnancy or anaesthesia. Results: The mean values of visual analogue scale (VAS) in Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D were 5.00 ±1.67, 4.62 ±1.12, 5.14 ±1.21, and 2.17 ±0.71, respectively. The ANOVA test revealed a significant difference in VAS among groups A, B, C, and D. Despite, the post-hoc test revealed a significant difference in VAS between group A versus group D, group B versus group D, and group C versus group D, but there were no significant differences between group A versus group B, group A versus group C, and group B versus group C. Conclusion: Cesarean delivery with different anaesthetic types as: epidural, spinal and general anaesthesia was associated with subacute low back pain without significant differences in pain intensity between these anaesthetic types. Key words: Neuraxial Anaesthesia, General Anaesthesia,Cesarean Delivery, Subacute Period, Low Back Pain.
OBJECTIVE:The study aims to compare the standard modified WHO partograph to the paperless partograph regarding the labor progress and delivery outcomes STUDY DESIGN: A randomized single-blind clinical trial was carried out in a tertiary University hospital from December 2016 to March 2018 included women admitted to the reception unit in the active phase of labor. inclusion criteria were; age 18-40 years, singleton pregnancy, vertex presentation and gestational age 38-42 weeks. Women were randomly assigned to group (I) included 185 women who were monitored using the modified WHO partograph during labor and group (II) included 185 women who were monitored using the paperless partograph. The primary outcome was the duration of active phase of labor. Secondary outcomes included the duration of second stage of labor, the rate of successful vaginal delivery, neonatal birth weight, Apgar score at one minute and the user friendliness score. RESULTS: There was no difference regarding age (p¼0.29), parity (p¼0.42), residence (p¼0.31), and gestational age at admission (p¼0.17). Use of paperless partograph significantly reduced the duration of active phase of labor (4.4AE1.1 vs. 5.8AE1.4 hours, p¼0.017), duration of second stage (16.2AE6.2 vs. 21.9AE8.3 minutes, p<0.001). The number of vaginal deliveries were high (68.1%) in the paperless partogrraph group vs. 54% in the other group (p¼0.04). no difference regarding the neonatal birth weight and Apgar score. The mean friendliness score was lower for the modified WHO partograph (3.78AE1.16 vs. 8.67AE1.09, p¼0.001). CONCLUSION: The paperless partograph is easier to use and associated with better monitoring of labor progress as well as better delivery outcomes than modified WHO partograph ajog.org CLINICAL OB 2 Oral Concurrent 8
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.