• Specifities of delivery methods of pregnant with oligohydramnios

Specifities of delivery methods of pregnant with oligohydramnios

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2017.9(125):65–68; doi 10.15574/HW.2017.125.65

Aliyeva L. I., Aliyeva E. M., Ismaylova A. D., Akhmedova T. N.
Azerbaijan Medical University, Baku

The objective: to study the rate of different obstetric pathologies followed by oligohydramnios, and to determinate the specifities of delivery methods in pregnant with oligohydramnios.
Materials and methods. There was done the retrospective analysis of 100 birth histories of pregnant with oligohydramnios. Эt was confirmed, that the cause for oligohydramnios in 54% of cases was premature rupture of membranes (PROM), in 10% of cases intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), dead fetus – in 19%, congenital abnormalities of the fetus in 8% and moderate and severe preeclampsia in 9% cases.
The rate of the spontaneous labor was 57%; 12% of labors was induced and 37% ended by cesarean section.
Results. The study showed that spontaneous labor (n=51) resulted in 47% of cases with very early labor, 41.1% of cases with early premature labor, and 11.8% with premature labor. In case of induced labor (n=12), the main indication for labor induction were dead fetus (n=9), and congenital abnormalities of the fetus (n=3). In 83.3% of cases induction of the labor was perfomed in 22-28, in 16% of cases in 29-31 weeks of gestation.
Conclusion. The rate of cesarean delivery in pregnant with oligohydramnios was 37%. The main indications for cesarean birth were: dead fetus, uterine car – 100%, severe preeclampsia – 18.2%, PROM – 13.2%, and breach presentation and acute hypoxia in 12.1% of cases. So, pregnant with oligohydramnios are in risk group for premature birth.
Key words: oligohydramnios, dead fetus, premature rupture of membranes, congenital abnormalities of the fetus, premature birth.

References
1. Bayev OR. Vasilchenko ON. Kan NE. 2013. Prezhdevremennyy razryv plodnykh obolochek (prezhdevremennoye izlitiye vod): klinicheskiye rekomendatsii. Zh. Akush. i ginekol. 9:123–130.

2. Dmitriyenko KV. 2014. Rodorazresheniye zhenshchin s prezhdevremennym izlitiyem okoloplodnykh vod pri donoshennoy beremennosti s uchetom parametrov vospalitelnogo otveta. Diss. k.m.n. Barnaul:123.

3. Isenova SSh. Adamzatova AB. Amirtayev ShM. 2014. Monitoring vnutriutrobnogo sostoyaniya ploda pri dorodovom razryve plodnykh obolochek (DRPO). Vestnik KazNMU 4:1–6.

4. Bornstein J, Ohel G, Sorokin Y, Reape KZ, Shnaider O. 2009. Effectiveness of a novel home-based testing device for the detection of rupture of membranes. Am.J.Perinatol. 26;1:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1095183; PMid:18979414

5. Cobo T, Palacio M, Martinez-Terron M, Navarro-Sastre A, Bosch J. 2011. Clinical and inflammatory markers in amniotic fluid as predictors of adverse outcomes in preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am.J.Obstet. Gynecol. 205;2:126–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.050

6. Lee SM, Park KH, Jung EY, Jang JA, Yoo Ha-Na. 2017. Frequency and clinical significance of chort cervix in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. PLOS ONE. 30:1–13.

7. Mahmoud MR, Hamela F, Mouhamed MM, Kamel MM. 2015. Placental Alpha Microglobulin-1 Detection in Cervico-vaginal Secretions in the Diagnosis of Preterm Premature Rupture of The Membranes. Eur.Int. J.Science Technology 4;5:21–31.

8. Mishra S, Joshi M. 2017. Premature Rupture of Membrane-Risk Factors: A Clinical Study. Int.J.Contemporary Medical Research 4;1:77–83.

9. Pasquier JC, Doret MD. 2008. Fetal membranes: embryological development, structure and the physiopathology of the preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. Paris. 37;6:579–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.12.001; PMid:18424017