RESEARCH PAPER
Maternal outcomes following second stage caesarean section in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia: A 6-year retrospective review
Nurul Nafizah Mohd Rashid 1, 2  
,   Nik Mohamed Zaki Nik Mahmood 1, 3  
,   Mohd Pazudin Ismail 1, 3  
,   Adibah Ibrahim 1, 3  
,   W Fadhlina W Adnan 1, 3  
,   Erinna Mohamad Zon 1, 3  
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab, Kota Bharu Kelantan, Malaysia
3
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Erinna Mohamad Zon   

Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan
Submission date: 2020-09-04
Final revision date: 2021-02-25
Acceptance date: 2021-02-25
Online publication date: 2021-06-30
 
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The trend for second stage caesarean section (SSCS) has been rising, and it carries a high rate of maternal and neonatal morbidity.

Aim:
To determine the prevalence of caesarean section (CS) performed during the second stage of labour and identify maternal outcomes and associated risk factors in these women.

Material and methods:
This retrospective study was performed in the Hospital University Sains Malaysia (HUSM). Medical records of 207 women with singleton cephalic pregnancies at term who underwent a SSCS between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 were reviewed, and demographic and outcome data were collected.

Results and discussion:
During the study period, 8,197 (19.3%) out of 42,546 babies were delivered by CS, including 257 (4.1%) SSCSs. Nearly half (49.3%) the women were nulliparous, 182 (87.9%) experienced spontaneous labour and 123 (59.4%) received oxytocin augmentation. Furthermore, 26 (12.6%) of women had post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL), of whom 22 (10.6%) required blood transfusion. Only 1 (0.5%) woman was admitted to the intensive care unit postoperatively, but 163 (78.7%) had an overall hospital stay length of 3 days. Furthermore, 38 (18.4%) and 33 (15.9%) of women experienced extended uterine tear and uterine atony, respectively. Parity (P < 0.001), attempted instrumentation (P < 0.001) and baby’s weight (P < 0.004) were statistically significantly associated with total blood loss. Parity (P < 0.012) and attempted instrumentation (P < 0.001) were risk factors for extended uterine tear.

Conclusions:
The overall outcomes from SSCS were better compared with studies performed in other centres. Current practices must be maintained or improved to provide the best patient caree.

FUNDING
This research was mot supported by any funding agency orgrant.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
 
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Asicioglu O, Güngördük K, Yildirim G, et al. Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34(7):598–604. https://doi.org/10.3109/014436....
 
2.
O’Brien S, Sharma K, Simpson A, et al. Learning from experience: development of a cognitive task list to perform a caesarean section in the second stage of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;37(12):1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1701-....
 
3.
Pandit SN, Khan RJ. Surgical techniques for performing caesarean section including CS at full dilatation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(2):179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpob....
 
4.
Govender V, Panday M, Moodley J. Second stage caesarean section at a tertiary hospital in South Africa. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2010;23(10):1151–1155. https://doi.org/10.3109/147670....
 
5.
Seal S L, Dey A, Barman SC, Kamilya G, Mukherji J. Does elevating the fetal head prior to delivery using a fetal pillow reduce maternal and fetal complications in a full dilatation caesarean section? A prospective study with historical controls. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34(3):241–244. https://doi.org/10.3109/014436....
 
6.
Kaźmierczak M, Gebuza G, Banaszkiewicz M, Mieczkowska E, Gierszewska M. Mood disorders after childbirth. Pol Ann Med. 2017;24(2):111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poam....
 
7.
Unterscheider J, McMenamin M, Cullinane F. Rising rates of caesarean deliveries at full cervical dilatation: a concerning trend. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;157(2):141–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejog....
 
8.
Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog....
 
9.
Vousden N, Cargill Z, Briley A, Tydeman G, Shennan AH. Caesarean section at full dilatation: incidence, impact and current management. Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;16(3):199–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12....
 
10.
Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet. 2001;358(9289):1203–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-....
 
11.
Denison FC, Hughes RG, Sargent L, Calder AA. Caesarean section audit. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;23(Suppl 1):S54. https://doi.org/10.1080/718591....
 
12.
Le Ray C, Audibert F, Goffinet F, Fraser W. When to stop pushing: effects of duration of second-stage expulsion efforts on maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(4):361.e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog....
 
13.
McKelvey A, Ashe R, McKenna D, Roberts R. Caesarean section in the second stage of labour : a retrospective review of obstetric setting and morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(3):264–267. https://doi.org/10.3109/014436....
 
14.
Pergialiotis V, Vlachos DG, Rodolakis A, Haidopoulos D, Thomakos N, Vlachos GD. First versus second stage C/S maternal and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;175:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejog....
 
15.
Davis G, Fleming T, Ford K, Mouawad MR, Ludlow J. Caesarean section at full cervical dilatation. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(6):565–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12....
 
16.
Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, Rizzo N, Pelusi G, Pilu G. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(3):331–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.63....
 
17.
Jeve YB, Navti OB, Konje JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(3):337–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0....
 
18.
Singh S. The second stage of labour. Int J Reprod Contraception Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8(10):4120–4129. https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/23....
 
19.
Vousden N, Tydeman G, Briley A, Seed PT, Shennan AH. Assessment of a vaginal device for delivery of the impacted foetal head at caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(2):157–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/014436....
 
20.
Lenz F, Kimmich N, Zimmermann R, Kreft M. Maternal and neonatal outcome of reverse breech extraction of an impacted fetal head during caesarean section in advanced stage of labour: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884....
 
21.
Keepanasseril A, Shaik N, Kubera NS, Adhisivam B, Maurya DK. Comparison of ‘push method’ with ‘Patwardhan’s method’ on maternal and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing caesarean section in second stage. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;39(5):606–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/014436....
 
22.
Waterfall H, Grivell RM, Dodd JM. Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD004944. https://doi.org/10.1002/146518....