O
B. K
B. T

' M K A




H , (<1000 .), 20. , . () , . , , . H , 1500 . 501 1000 ., , . I , , .
' M K A 1996-2000 16,5% 53,9%, 46,1%. O : 7,3% , 3,1%, 10,9%, 10,9% 26,6% .
: T , , .

EIAH

37 (259 ). T 5-10% 37 2-3% 32 . , < 32 , . H , (B), 20.(1) A, . H , , .(2)
T 1983-1993 40-55% 32 28-30% 37 .(3)
E, B.. <1.500 gr . O , . , , , . () () , , .(4) , .(5) I .

I. POKHTO (POPAMMATIMENO) POPO TOKETO

.(3) . , , , , .(6)
, , , .
, . T, 34 , 34 E2 .(7)

II. AYTOMATO (ANAOEYKTO) POPO TOKETO

, , , , , . E, , . H , , , .(8)


A. KEAIKH POBOH

T . E, , , .(3)
O , <1500 , .(8) B <1500 350 mm Hg , . H , , .(9) O , . , .(10) stress .(11)
O BE < 1500 . O .(12) O . A, ( ) ( ).(13)
O , . 25-28 , B 500-700 ., , , .(13-16) E, . H , , , .

IEYETHH POPOY TOKETOY

H . A , , , . H .(17)
H , . E . , "" :(18)
1.
2. E
3. K ,
4. A (variability)
A , pH (ACOG Technical Bulletin). T , , pH < 7,25 -6, .

H POYAKTIKH EMBPYOYKIA

H . O Beberly(19) < 35 . , . O 800-1350 . , .(26) O O Driscoll,(20) 110.344 , .(27) A, Schwartz 500-1500 .(20) M , .

H EKTEEH EIIOTOMH

H . A Lobb Cooke(29) 48 . , . , . H .

B. IXIAKH POBOH KAI ANMAE POBOE

H 20-25% . H (), , .(21) H , , , , . H 1000-2500 . 100%, 63%.(22,23)
, , 21% , 59%.(24) H < 2500 . , , . O, Apgar scores.(24)
E, Weissman(25) , . M, , , .
, Bodmer, Rossen .(26) , .(27)
, , 32-33 1500 ., . K , , , .

. IYMA - TPIYMA

T 15-20% < 1500 . . E / .(28) E , . , , 1500 . E < 1500 .
1. K A / K B:
2. K A / M B:
3. I A:
IVF .(29)

III. TOKETO ME POPH PHH YMENN

O 5% 80% 2,5 Kgr. E 1/3 . M , , 40% , . , . E , . O . .
K 34
H , .
K 24 34
H . H , . E, . E , . , .(31)
K 24
. H . H .(31)

IV. POPO TOKETO TH ' MAIEYTIKH YNAIKOOIKH KINIKH

M K A /, I N /, 1996-2000, 3.734 , 3.118 (83,5%) 616 (16,5%) ( 1). T 2. H 53,9% 46,1%, 338 284 . H , , 4.
H 5. 6 . O 499 (81%), 99 (16,1%), 17 (2,8%) (0,2%) ( 7). , 251 (50%) 248 (50%) ( 8). A 616 , 482 (78,2%) E 134 (21,8%) ( 9). A , 412 (67,2%) M E N N (MENN), 169 (27,4%) T 33 (5,4%) .
, ( 16,5%) ' K A..., .(3)

Summary

Karagiannis V, Tsimas V.
Mode of delivery in preterm infants.
Hellen Obstet Gynecol 14(3):246-252, 2002
Correspondence: V. Tsimas
5 M. Alexandrou str,
55134 Thessaloniki
Tel: 0310432891
billtsimas@hotmail.com

During the past 20 years, the survival rate of very-low-birth-weight infants has increased remarkably, and the contribution of better obstetric care should not be underestimated. In elective preterm deliveries, cesarean section is often the preferred method of delivery, since induction is difficult and liable to fail. In spontaneous (active) preterm labor, the factors influencing the decision include the presentation, progress of labor, and fetal and maternal complications.
If labor is normal and the fetus is not distressed, vaginal delivery in a preterm infant presenting vertex is appropriate. Cesarian section should be reserved for obstetric indications and for breech presentations when the estimated fetal weight is less than 1,5 Kg, or less than 1.000 gr.
Special care is needed in the cases of premature rupture of the membranes in preterm labor. We also performed a clinical investigation for the mode of delivery in the premature infants at the 3rd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Thessaloniki, and we found that the incidence of the premature labor were 16,5% and the percentage of the cesarian section was 53,9%, where as the frequency of the normal labor was 46,1% of all the cases.
Key words: Mode of delivery in preterm labor, elective and spontaneous preterm deliveries, cesarian section, premature rupture of membranes.

3rd Department of Obstetrics - Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

BIBIOPAIA

1. Roberto R. Mode of delivery of mothers giving birth to preterm infant. In: Churchill Livingstone ed. Preterm labor. Churchil Livingston Ch, 1997; 15.
2. Stewart AL, Reynolds EOR, Lipscomb AP. Out-come for infants of very low birth weight: summary of world literature. Lancet 1981; 1:038.
3. Westgen M. Mode of delivery of mothers giving. preterm infants. In: Preterm labor. Chur. Living-stone, 1997; 15:331.
4. K A. M. University Studio Press, , 1992; 8:123.
5. M M, . E I. . M . 1996; 16:212.
6. Nicolini U, Nicolaidis P, Fisk NM, et al. Limited role of fetal blood sampling in prediction of outcome in intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1990; 336:768.
7. Zanini A, Guidini A, Norchi S, et al. Preinduction cervical ripening with prostaglandine E2 gel: intra-cervical versus intravaginal route. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76:681.
8. , M . T . E M 1991; 4(2):95.
9. Kriewall T, McPherson GK. Effects of uterine contractility on the fetal cranium. In: Milunsky A, Friedman E, Gluck L (eds): Advances in Perinatal Medicine. Plenum, New York, 1981; 1:295.
10. Towbin A, Turner GL. Obstetric factors in fetal-neonatal visceral injuries. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52:113.
11. Maxwell K. Hallmarks of fetal growth and development. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980; 23:127.
12. Malloy MH, Rhoads GG, Schraumm W, Land C. Increasing cesarean section rates in very low birth weight infants: Effect on outcome. JAMA 1989; 262:1475.
13. Kitchen W, Ford GW, Doyle LW, et al. Cesarean section or vaginal delivery and neonatal two-year morbility. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66:149.
14. Rosen MG, Chik L. The association between cesarean birth and outcome in vertex presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150:775.
15. Anderson GD, Bada HS, Sibai BM, et al. The relationship between labor and route of delivery in the preterm infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158:1382.
16. Nelson KB, Ellemberg JH. Apgar scores as Predictors of cerebral palsy. Pediatrics 1981; 68:36.
17. Westgrem LMR, Holmquist P, Svenningsen NW, et al. Itrapartum fetal monitoring in Preterm deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60:99.
18. Beverly DW, Chance GW, Coutes CF. Intrave-ntricular haemorrhage. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 91:1077-83.
19. O Driscoll K, Meagher D, et al. Traumatic intra-cranial haemorrhage in first born infants and delivery with obstetricforceps. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981; 88:577.
20. Wigglesworth JS, Husemyer RDS. Intracranial birth trauma in vaginal breech delivery: the continued importance of injury to the occipital bone. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 84:684.
21. Main E, Maurer M. Cesarean section versus vaginal delivery for the breech fetus weighing less than 1500 gr. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146:580.
22. Kaupilla O, Gronros M, Aso P, et al. Management of low birth weight breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 57:289.
23. Goldenberg RL, Nelson KG. The premature breech. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1977; 127:240.
24. Weissman A, Blazers, Zimmer E, et al. Low birth weight breech infant. Am J Perinatol 1988; 5:289.
25. Bodmer B, Benjamin A, McLean F, Usher RH. Has use of cesarean section reduced the risks of delivery in the preterm breech presentation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154:244.
26. Woods JR. Effects of low-birth weight breech delivery on neonatal mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 53:735.
27. Barrett JM, Staggs S, et al. The effect of type of delivery upon neonatal outcome in premature twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143:360.
28. Wildschut HIJ, van Roosmalen J, van Leeuwen E, Keirse MJNC. Planned abdominal compared with planned vaginal birth in triplet pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102:292.
29. Campbell S. T: - - A. M 1998; 7:128-35.
30. Kypros N. . M 1998; 7:136.


A: B. T
M. A 5
55134
T: 0310432891
billtsimas@hotmail.com

 

 

PAGE

 


<<<