The Effect of the Use of a New Type of Partogram on the Cesarean Section Rates

Overview

Journal J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc

Publisher Galenos Publishing House

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2015 Sep 25

PMID 26401106

Citations 3

Authors

Georgios Vlachos

Panagiotis Tsikouras

Bachar Manav

Grigorios Trypsianis

Vasileios Liberis

Sakellarios Karpathios

Georgios Galazios

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the contribution of a new type of partogram, used in labor monitoring, in caesarean section rates.

Material And Methods: The study included term singleton uncomplicated pregnancies divided into two groups. Two types of partogram were used in labor monitoring. In the first group, the classical WHO partogram (A) was used. In the second group, a new type of partogram, in which cervical dilatation and the position of descending head (B) (one line) were estimated and reported, was used. The labor duration and caesarean section rates were calculated and compared in the two groups.

Results: A statistically significant decrease in labor duration (from the initiation of the active phase of labor to the delivery time) (dt1+dt2+dt3) (p<0.001, A: median: 318.4±10.4 min, B: 246.56±8.28 min) and in caesarean section rates was noted (p<0.001, A: 89 vs B: 49).

Conclusion: The new type of partogram seems to have potential benefits such as reducing the incidence of prolonged labor and decreasing the caesarean section rates.

Citing Articles

Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean section among mothers who gave birth in Ambo town, Oromia, Central Ethiopia, a case-control study.

Mamo N, Siyoum D Afr Health Sci. 2023; 22(4):357-367.

PMID: 37092038 PMC: 10117488. DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v22i4.41.

Medical and non-medical reasons for cesarean section delivery in Egypt: a hospital-based retrospective study.

Elnakib S, Abdel-Tawab N, Orbay D, Hassanein N BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1):411.

PMID: 31703638 PMC: 6842224. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2558-2.

Effect of Continued Support of Midwifery Students in Labour on the Childbirth and Labour Consequences: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Bolbol-Haghighi N, Masoumi S, Kazemi F J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(9):QC14-QC17.

PMID: 27790526 PMC: 5072026. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/19947.8495.

References

Sallam H, Sakr R, Sallam A, Loutfy I . Mathematical relationships between uterine contractions, cervical dilatation, descent and rotation in spontaneous vertex deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999; 64(2):135-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-7292(98)00251-3. View

Zhang J, Landy H, Branch D, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory K . Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(6):1281-1287. PMC: 3660040. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fdef6e. View

Guise J, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman M, Marshall N, Fu R . Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010; (191):1-397. PMC: 4781304. View

Bosse G, Massawe S, Jahn A . The partograph in daily practice: it's quality that matters. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002; 77(3):243-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00004-8. View

Mathews J, Rajaratnam A, George A, Mathai M . Comparison of two World Health Organization partographs. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007; 96(2):147-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.08.016. View

Hofmeyr G . Obstructed labor: using better technologies to reduce mortality. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004; 85 Suppl 1:S62-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.01.011. View

Deng W, Klemetti R, Long Q, Wu Z, Duan C, Zhang W . Cesarean section in Shanghai: women's or healthcare provider's preferences?. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:285. PMC: 4148545. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-285. View

Dabbas M, Al-Sumadi A . Cesarean section rate: much room for reduction. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 34(3):146-8. View

Clark S, Belfort M, Dildy G, Herbst M, Meyers J, Hankins G . Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(1):36.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.007. View

10.

Orhue A, Aziken M, Osemwenkha A . Partograph as a tool for team work management of spontaneous labor. Niger J Clin Pract. 2012; 15(1):1-8. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.94087. View

11.

Fatusi A, Makinde O, Adeyemi A, Orji E, Onwudiegwu U . Evaluation of health workers' training in use of the partogram. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007; 100(1):41-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.07.020. View

12.

Ogwang S, Karyabakabo Z, Rutebemberwa E . Assessment of partogram use during labour in Rujumbura Health Sub District, Rukungiri District, Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2010; 9 Suppl 1:S27-34. PMC: 2890990. View

13.

Ryan K, Schnatz P, Greene J, Curry S . Change in cesarean section rate as a reflection of the present malpractice crisis. Conn Med. 2005; 69(3):139-41. View

14.

Gregory K, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M . Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits?. Am J Perinatol. 2011; 29(1):7-18. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1285829. View

15.

Leanza V, Leanza G, Monte S . A didactic protocol for labour and delivery: the partogram. Minerva Ginecol. 2011; 63(4):325-32. View

16.

Lagrew D, Bush M, McKeown A, Lagrew N . Emergent (crash) cesarean delivery: indications and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(6):1638-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.03.007. View

17.

Liu Y, Li G, Chen Y, Wang X, Ruan Y, Zou L . A descriptive analysis of the indications for caesarean section in mainland China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:410. PMC: 4269966. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-014-0410-2. View

18.

van Bogaert L . The partogram's result and neonatal outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 26(4):321-4. DOI: 10.1080/01443610600594963. View

19.

Kidanto H, Massawe S, Nystrom L, Lindmark G . Analysis of perinatal mortality at a teaching hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 1999-2003. Afr J Reprod Health. 2007; 10(2):72-80. View

20.

Juntunen K, Kirkinen P . Partogram of a grand multipara: different descent slope compared with an ordinary parturient. J Perinat Med. 1994; 22(3):213-8. DOI: 10.1515/jpme.1994.22.3.213. View