ABSTRACT
Background: Induction of labour has remained one of the most valuable interventions in obstetric practice. Over the years, the proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has been on a steady increase. The significance to obstetrics practice as well as its maternal and perinatal outcomes are sacrosanct, hence the need for its periodic review. Objective: To determine the obstetric outcomes of induction of labour. Methods: A five-year retrospective study of all cases of induction of labour at the maternity unit of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital (NAUTH), Nnewi, Nigeria between January 1st 2017 and 31st December 2021. The labour ward's records were assessed to determine the total number of women who had induction of labour during the study period. Women whose case files could be not retrieved were excluded. The folder numbers of the patients were extracted and their case files retrieved from the medical records department of the hospital. The primary outcomes measures were the indications and the methods of induction of labour, while the secondary outcome measures were the mode of delivery, cause of failed induction, and the perinatal outcome. Data were obtained using proformas and analysed using statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS) version 26.0 IBM corporation. Result: A total of 3,638 deliveries were taken during the period under review and 168 patients had induction of labour giving an overall prevalence of 4.6% (46/1000 deliveries). Induction of labour was successful in 71.2% of cases. Misoprostol was used in 90.4% of cases as an induction agent. The commonest indication for induction of labour was postdate pregnancy (53.8%). Failed induction was due to fetal distress, poor progress of labour from cephalopelvic disproportion/malposition and failed cervical ripening. In about 72% of deliveries, there was good perinatal outcome, 10.3% of babies had moderate to severe asphyxia while 1.3% had neonatal death. Conclusion: Induction of labour is a safe and beneficial procedure in obstetrics. However, it can be associated with adverse obstetric outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Objective: We systematically identified the prevalence of triplex infections (combined human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV)) in pregnancy. Methods: To gather information on the frequency of triplex infections, we searched the databases of PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Without regard to language, we utilized search terms that covered HIV, HBV, HCV, and pregnancy. Pregnant women with triplex infections of HIV, HBV, and HCV were included in studies that also examined the prevalence of triplex infections. Review Manager 5.4.1 was employed to conduct the meta-analysis. Critical appraisal and bias tool risk data were provided as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and I2 was used as the statistical measure of heterogeneity. The checklist was created by Hoy and colleagues. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42020202583. Results: Eight studies involving 5314 women were included. We identified one ongoing study. Pooled prevalence of triplex infections was 0.03% (95% CI: 0.02-0.04%) according to meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significantly high prevalence of 0.08% (95% CI: 0.06-0.10%; 3863 women) in HIV-positive population than 0.00% (95% CI:-0.00-0.00; 1451 women; P < 0.001) in general obstetric population. Moreover, there was a significant difference in the pooled prevalence between studies published between 2001 and 2010 and between 2011 and 2021 (0.14% (95% CI: 0.12 to 0.16 versus 0.03% (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.04%; P < 0.001))) and participants recruited in the period between 2001 and 2011 and between 2012 and 2021 (0.13% (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.21; p=0.002 versus 0.00% (95% CI: -0.00 to 0.00%; p=1.00))), respectively. Conclusion: The combined prevalence of prenatal triplex infections was 0.03%, with rates notably higher among the group of pregnant women who were HIV-positive and during the recruitment period that took place before 2012. This prevalence still necessitates screening for these infections as necessary.
ABSTRACT
Background: Uterine dehiscence is a separation of uterine musculature with intact uterine serosa. It can be encountered at the time of cesarean delivery, suspected on obstetric ultrasound or diagnosed in-between pregnancies. The antenatal diagnosis may occasionally elude the Obstetricians. This particular case demonstrates an intra-operative diagnosis of uterine dehiscence with missed antenatal ultrasound diagnosis in an asymptomatic woman. Case presentation: She was a 32-year-old Nigerian second gravida who booked for antenatal care at 32 weeks of gestation following a referral from her attending Obstetrician from a neighboring state due to relocation. She had 3 antenatal visits and 2 antenatal ultrasound investigations without uterine scar thickness report. She subsequently had elective Cesarean section (CS) at a gestational age of 38 weeks plus 2 days due to persistent breech presentation on a background of a previous lower segment CS scar. There was no previous uterine curettage prior to or after the previous lower segment CS scar and there was no labor pains prior to the elective CS. The surgery was successful with intra-operative findings of moderate intra parietal peritoneal adhesions with rectus sheath and obvious uterine dehiscence along the line of the previous CS scar. The fetal outcomes were normal. Immediate post-operative condition was satisfactory and the woman was discharged on a third-day post operation. Conclusion: Obstetricians are charged to maintain a high index of suspicion when managing pregnant women with history of emergency CS in order to avert the adverse consequences of uterine rupture from asymptomatic uterine dehiscence. Based on this report, it may be useful to routinely assess the lower uterine segment scar of women with previous emergency CS using the available ultrasound facilities. However, more studies are needed before advocating for routine antenatal uterine scar thickness testing following emergency lower segment CS in low and middle-income settings.