[Skin-to-skin caesarean section: better patient care]. / De huid-op-huidsectio: betere patiëntenzorg.

Five years ago, we described the skin-to-skin caesarean section, a procedure in which parental participation, slow delivery and direct skin-to-skin contact are important aspects. By multiple research, the skin-to-skin CS has been shown to have positive outcomes for the child and parents, as long as there is attention for neonatal thermal regulation. These outcomes should lead to cost reduction, versus the extra personnel costs for the nurse. However, a proper cost-effectiveness analysis has not yet been described. There are still many local differences in availability and performance of the skin-to-skin CS in the Netherlands, often caused by logistical challenges. In the meanwhile the protocol has been further optimized. In our opinion, the skin-to-skin caesarean section is better care for parents and their child, and should be available anywhere anytime, as long as the fetal and maternal condition permits this.

Risks and benefits of the skin-to-skin cesarean section - a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes after conventional cesarean section (CS) versus a "natural" or "skin-to-skin" cesarean section (SSCS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort of women who underwent a SSCS (01-2013 until 12-2013) compared to conventional CS (08-2011 to 08-2012). CS before 37 weeks, under general anesthesia and in case of fetal distress were excluded. Main outcome measures were maternal blood loss, post-operative infection and admission; neonatal infection and admission; procedural outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 285 (44%) women in the SSCS-group and 365 (56%) in the conventional CS-group. There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (2.1% versus 1.6%; RR 1.1; 95%CI 0.64-2.0), or other maternal outcomes. Fewer neonates born after SSCS were admitted to the pediatric ward (9.5% versus 18%; RR 0.58; 95%CI 0.41-0.80) and fewer neonates had a suspected neonatal infection (2.0% versus 7.3%; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.19-0.83). No differences were observed for other outcomes. Mean operation time was 4m42s longer in the SSCS-group compared to the conventional CS-group (58m versus 53m; 95%CI 2m44s-6m40s). Mean recovery time was 14m46s shorter (114m versus 129m; 95%CI 3m20s-26m). CONCLUSION: Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were not increased after skin-to-skin cesarean compared to conventional cesarean delivery.

Outcome of infants presenting with echogenic bowel in the second trimester of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal echogenic bowel (FEB) is a soft marker found on second trimester sonography. Our main aim was to determine the outcome of infants who presented with FEB and secondarily to identify additional sonographic findings that might have clinical relevance for the prognosis. DESIGN: We reviewed all pregnancies in which the diagnosis FEB was made in our Fetal Medicine Unit during 2009-2010 (N=121). We divided all cases into five groups according to additional sonographic findings. Group 1 consisted of cases of isolated FEB, group 2 of FEB associated with dilated bowels, group 3 of FEB with one or two other soft markers, group 4 of FEB with major congenital anomalies or three or more other soft markers, and group 5 consisted of FEB with isolated intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). RESULTS: Of 121 cases, five were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 116 cases, 48 (41.4%) were assigned to group 1, 15 (12.9%) to group 2, 15 (12.9%) to group 3, 27 (23.2%) to group 4, and 11 (9.5%) to group 5. The outcome for group 1 was uneventful. In group 2 and 3, two anomalies, anorectal malformation and cystic fibrosis, were detected postnatally (6.7%). In group 4, mortality and morbidity were high (78% resp. 22%). Group 5 also had high mortality (82%) and major morbidity (18%). CONCLUSIONS: If FEB occurs in isolation, it is a benign condition carrying a favourable prognosis. If multiple additional anomalies or early IUGR are observed, the prognosis tends to be less favourable to extremely poor.

Neonatal jaundice and stool production in breast- or formula-fed term infants.

It has remained unclear whether the amount of fecal fat excreted in the stool and stool production influences the severity of neonatal jaundice. We determined the relationship between stool production, fecal fat excretion and jaundice in healthy breast-fed (BF) or formula-fed (FF) (near-)term neonates. From postnatal day 1-4, we quantitatively collected stools from 27 FF and 33 BF infants in daily fractions. Stool production and fecal fat contents were related to unconjugated bilirubin (UCB) levels, as determined by transcutaneous bilirubinometry (TcB). Bilirubin concentrations and stool production did not differ between FF and BF neonates during the study period. Neonatal bilirubin levels were not inversely correlated with stool production. FF and BF infants had similar fecal fat excretion rates. The stool production of FF infants was profoundly lower in the present study than in a 1985 study by De Carvalho et al. [J Pediatr (1985) 107:786-790]. We conclude that increased jaundice during the first postnatal days in healthy term neonates can no longer be attributed to breast-feeding and speculate that improved absorbability of formulas since 1985 has contributed to similar fat excretion and stool production in FF and BF neonates in 2007.