The reasons for the termination of pregnancies in the third trimester in Shahr-e-kord’s Hadjar hospital during 2005

Delaram, Masoumeh; Rahmani, Forouzan; Ahmadi, Alireza

The reasons for the termination of pregnancies in the third trimester in Shahr-e-kord’s Hadjar hospital during 2005

Vol. 7, Issue 1, / April-June 2006
(pages 65-72)

Masoumeh Delaram: - Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Shahrekord University of Medical Science & Health Services, Shahr-e-Kord, Iran
Forouzan Rahmani: - Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Shahr-e-Kord University of Medical Science & Health Services, Shahr-e-Kord, Iran
Alireza Ahmadi: - Department of Biomedicine women, Research Center,Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 4/1/2006 Accepted: 4/1/2006 - Publisher : Avicenna Research Institute

Other Format

Abstract

Introduction: Observations show that the majority of pregnant women hospitalized in the third trimester of pregnancy, their pregnancies are terminated in the absence of any labor pain. Because of the importance of mother and baby health, this study was designed to assess the reasons for these terminations in Hadjar’s University Hospital in Shahr-e-Kord. Materials & Methods: In this descriptive and analytical study, 750 women who were hospi-talized for the termination of pregnancy, were selected randomly and assessed in morning, evening and night shifts. A questionnaire and a check list were used for data collection. Hospital records, interviews with mothers, a vaginal exam and physical exam of infants were used to complete the form and the check list. Data were analized by SPSS software and t, Chi square tests were used and p<0.05 was considered significant. results: based on the results, 298 (39.7%) of pregnancies were terminated for labor pain and 452 (60.3%) were terminated according to physicians’ advice or other health care providers’ without presence of labor pain. in the latter group, 23.2% of pregnancies were terminated for a history of previous cesarean section, elective cesarean sections, reduction of fetal movements, post-term pregnancies, maternal hypertention, placenta previa, placenta abruption or oligohydro-amnious.the mean bishop score for induction was greater in women whose pregnancies were terminated for labor pain than those terminated according to physicians’ or any other health care providers’ advice (df="541," p<0.001). the correlation between bishop score and mode of delivery was significant and in women whose bishop score was less than 5, cesarean section was higher (df="20," p<0.001). after the elimination of previous and elective cesarean sections, the correlation between the causes of terminations and mode of delivery was significant and most hospitalized women terminated their pregnancieis, by cesarean section without presence of labor pain (df="16," p<0.001), although in this group the mean gestational age based on lmp and sonography was greater than those with labor pain (t="3.7," df="311," p<0.001). there were no significant differences in the weight of infants in the two groups. conclusion: taking the exact information in prenatal cares about the gestational age, carrying out a sonography in the first 26 weeks of pregnancy, educating pregnant women about the time of hospitalization for the termination of pregnancy and complications of early hospitalization, forming a specialty committee to decide on the termination of pregnancies in hospitals and setting practice guidelines in this regard,are efforts to prevent early termination of pregnancies.< pan>

Keywords: Termination of pregnancy, Third trimester, Cesarean section, Delivery, High risk pregnancy

To cite this article:

Delaram M, Rahmani F, Ahmadi A. The reasons for the termination of pregnancies in the third trimester in Shahr-e-kord’s Hadjar hospital during 2005. J Reprod Infertil. 2006;7(1):65-72.

References

Savitz D.A., Terry J.W. Jr., Dole N., Thorp J.M. Jr., Siega-Riz A.M., Herring A.H. Comparison of preg-nancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scan-ning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(6):1660-6.
Cunningham F.G., Gant N.F., Leveno K.J., Gilstrap L. C., Hauth J.C., Wenstrom K.D. Ultrasound and dopp-ler. Williams obstetrics. from McGRAW-Hill company Newyork.2001;pp:1111-39.
Johnson D.P., Davis N.R., Brown A.J. Risk of cesa-rean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol.2003;188(6):1565-9.
Bailit J.L., Garrett J.M., Miller W.C., McMahon M.J., Cefalo R.C. Hospital primary cesarean delivery rates and the risk of poor neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol.2002;187(3):721-7.
Jerbi M., Hidar S., Ammar A., Khairi H. Predictive factors of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet.2006;94(1):43-4.
Hoffman M.K., Vahratian A., Sciscione A.C., Troen-dle J.F., Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107 (5):1029-34.
Heinberg E.M., Wood R.A., Chambers R.B. Elective induction of labor in multiparous women. Does it increase the risk of cesarean section? J Reprod Med. 2002;47(5):399-403.
Seyb S.T., Berka R.J., Socol M.L., Dooley S.L. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol.1999;94 (4):600-7.
Maslow A.S., Sweeny A.L. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol.2000;95(6Pt1):917-22.
Dublin S., Lydon-Rochelle M., Kaplan R.C., Watts D.H., Critchlow C.W. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indica-tion. Am J Obstet Gynecol.2000;183(4):986-94.
Dommergues M., Benachi A., Benifla J.L., des Noettes R., Dumez Y. The reasons for termination of pregnancy in the third trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(4):297-303.
Burrough A. Health problems complicating pregnan-cy. In: Burrough Arlene. Maternity nursing. An Intro-duction Text. 7th Edition. W.B saunders company. 1997;pp:366-372.
Bosma J.M., van der Wal G., Hosman-Benjaminse S. L. Late termination of pregnancy in North Holland. Br J Obstet Gynaecol.1997;104 (4):478-87.
Cunningham F.G., Gant N.F., Leveno K.J., Gilstrap L.C., Hauth J.C., Wenstrom K.D. Obstetrics in Broad Perspective. Williams Obstetrics. From McGRAW-Hill company, Newyork.2001;pp:3-13.
Yeast J.D., Jones A., Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(3 Pt 1):628-33.
Cunningham F.G., Gant N.F., Leveno K.J., Gilstrap L.C., Hauth J.C., Wenstrom K.D. Cesarean Section and Post partum hysterectomy. Williams Obstet. From McGRAW-Hill company, Newyork. 2001;pp:537-563.
Porter M., Bhattacharya S., van Teijlingen E., Templeton A. Reproductive Outcome Following Cae-sarean Section (ROCS) Collaborative Group. Does Caesarean section cause infertility? Hum Reprod.2003; 18(10):1983-6. Review.
شاكريان بهار. بررسي فراواني نسبي سزارين و علل انجام آن در استان چهار محال و بختياري. مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشكي شهركرد، 1383، 6(1). صفحات: 69-63.
Rahnama P., Ziaei S., Faghihzadeh S. Impact of early admission in labor on method of delivery. Int JGynaecol Obstet.2006;92(3):217-20.
Alves B., Sheikh A. Investigating the relationship between affluence and elective caesarean sections. BJOG.2005;112(7):994-6.
Kwee A., Cohlen B.J., Kanhai H.H., Bruinse H.W., Visser G.H. Caesarean section on request: a survey in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;15;113(2):186-90.
Woodrow N.L. Termination review committees: are they necessary? Med J Aust.2003;179(2):92-4.Review.