Background: Cesarean section (CS) can be considered as one of the most frequently performed surgical procedure worldwide, accounting for up to 70% of deliveries, depending on the facility being assessed and the country involved. In Egypt its rate reach about 51.8% from deliveries. Objetive: To compare closure versus non-closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum during primary cesarean section regarding early postoperative outcome. Patients and Methods: A randomized-controlled study that was conducted at Ismailia General Hospitals during the period from November 2018 to March 2019. Included 142 pregnant women attending Obstetrics and Gynecology Department for primary cesarean section who were divided into two groups. Group I (Control) 71 patients with closure of both the visceral and parietal peritoneum (Study) 71 patients with non-closure of both the visceral and parietal peritoneum. Patients were assessed for intra-operative parameters including operation time. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for pain degree, distention, fever, regain of intestinal sound, wound infection and duration of hospital stay. Results: There was statistically significant difference between both groups regarding age, BMI, parity, gestational age and type of CS. Non-closure technique of both visceral and parietal peritoneum in CS is associated with shorter operation time, less postoperative pain score, rapid regain of intestinal motility and less duration of hospital stay. Conclusion: Non-closure of both visceral and parietal peritoneum at CS is associated with less operative time, less postoperative pain and distention and wound infection hence routine closure of peritoneum at CS can be avoided.
Background: Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) is a common pregnancy complication and is associated with significant risks of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Objective: This study aimed to measure the incidence rate of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) among pregnant women attending Zagazig University Hospital, and to identify the risk factors associated with PROM and fetal/neonatal outcomes. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Zagazig University Hospitals. It included 69 women with PROM. The study was conducted from July 2019 to January 2020. All patients were subjected to detailed history taking, general examination and laboratory investigations. Results: There were 46 mother gave birth of healthy babies with good Apgar score (66.7%), 15 with babies needed O2 incubators (21.7%) and 8 with babies that were put on ventilators (11.6%). There were 68 mothers with no bad outcomes and 1 with chorioamnionitis. The risk factors of the cases showed that there were 15 with no risk factor (21.7%), 8 with previous PROM (11.6%), 6 with multi pregnancy (8.7%), 12 with antepartum (17.4%), 16 with infections (23.2%) and 12 with chronic diseases (17.4%). Conclusions: we concluded that younger, illiterate parturient women were found to be provoking factors to increased PPROM. Such hazards may affect both maternal and neonatal outcome such as infection, maternal distress, fetal distress, increase operative delivery, as well as need for neonatal intensive care unit care in more than 50% of the neonates.
Background: Prematurity is a leading cause of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, complicating up to 10% of all pregnancies. Mortality and morbidities, including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and sepsis, are inversely associated with gestational age at birth. Objective: This study aimed to decrease the morbidities and mortalities resulting from premature rupture of membrane (PROM).
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.