Analysis of Patients Undergoing Peripartum Hysterectomy for Obstetric Causes According to Delivery Methods: 13-Year Experience of a Tertiary Center

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the maternal and fetal outcomes of patients undergoing peripartum hysterectomy (PH) after vaginal delivery (VD) and cesarean section (C/S). Methods: The files of patients undergoing PH following postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) between January 2005 and November 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients undergoing PH were divided into two groups as C/S and VD. Age, parity, gestational weeks, time between delivery and hysterectomy, estimated blood loss, duration of operation, number of blood transfusions, hospitalization time, APGAR scores of the fetus at the 1st and 5th minutes, previous C/S histories, fetal and maternal mortality, indications for PH, additional surgeries performed during PH, and pre-op and post-op complications were recorded retrospectively and the groups were compared. Results: A total of 147 patients who underwent PH for postpartum PPH were identified. Of the patients included in the study, 77 underwent PH after VD and 70 underwent PH after C/S. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, parity, time between delivery and hysterectomy, estimated blood loss, number of blood transfusions, hospitalisation time, and maternal mortality rates. The gestational weeks of the patients in the VD group were higher than that of the patients in the C/S group (P = 0.003). Mean duration of operation of the C/S group was longer than that of the VD group (P ˂ 0.001). APGAR scores of the fetus at the 1st and 5th minutes were higher in the VD group compared to the C/S group (P ˂0.001, P ˂0.001, respectively). The most common indication for PH was uterine atony in the VD group (n: 54, 70.1%) and uterine rupture in the C/S group (n: 24, 34.2%). Disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) was the most common complication in both groups. Conclusion: While fetal mortality and morbidity are higher in patients undergoing hysterectomy after C/S, long-term effects caused by C/S (previous C/S, placenta accreta, placenta previa) increase PH risk. However, it should also be considered that PH risk may increase after VD as well.

Keywords

• Peripartum hysterectomy,cesarean section

References

1. 1. Donati S, Maraschini A, Lega I, et al. Maternal mortality in Italy: Results and perspectives of record-linkage analysis. ActaObstetGynecolScand 2018; 97: 1317–24.
2. 2. Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2014; 384: 980–1004.
3. 3. Lu MC, Fridman M, Korst LM, et al. Variations in the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage across hospitals in California. Matern Child Health J 2005; 9: 297–306.
4. 4. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GHA, Bruinse HW. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: A prospective study in the Netherlands. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol 2006; 124: 187–92.
5. 5. World Health Organization. "Evaluating the quality of care for severe pregnancy complications: the WHO near-miss approach for maternal health. ". Geneva WHO 2011; 29.
6. 6. Evsen M. S., Sak M. E., Özkul Ö., Bozkurt Y., Kapan M. Acilperipartumhisterektomi. Dicle Med Journal/Dicle Tip Derg 2009; 1: 36.
7. 7. Dogan O, Pulatoglu C, Yassa M. A new facilitating technique for postpartum hysterectomy at full dilatation: Cervical clamp. J Chinese Med Assoc 2018; 81: 366–9.
8. 8. YamanTunc S, Agacayak E, Sak S, et al. Multiple repeat caesarean deliveries: do they increase maternal and neonatal morbidity? J Matern Neonatal Med 2017; 30: 739–44.

9. 9. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2018; 15.
10. 10. De la Cruz CZ, Thompson EL, O’Rourke K, Nembhard WN. Cesarean section and the risk of emergency peripartum hysterectomy in high-income countries: a systematic review. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015; 292: 1201–15.
11. 11. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. ObstetGynecol 2008; 111: 97–105.
12. 12. Tahaoglu, A. E., Balsak, D., Togrul, C., et al. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: our experience. Ir J Med Sci 2016; 185: 833–8.
13. 13. Bakshi S, Meyer BA. Indications for and outcomes of emergency peripartum hysterectomy: A five-year review. J Reprod Med ObstetGynecol 2000; 45: 733–7.
14. 14. Zeteroglu S, Ustun Y, Engin-Ustun Y, Sahin G, Kamaci M. Peripartum hysterectomy in a teaching hospital in the eastern region of Turkey. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol 2005; 120: 57–62.
15. 15. Engelsen IB, Albrechtsen S, Iversen OE. Peripartum hysterectomy-incidence and maternal morbidity. ActaObstetGynecolScand 2001; 80: 409–12.
16. 16. Zeitlin J, AshnaMohangoo, Marie Delnord. European Perinatal Health Report. The health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. 2013.
17. 17. Erdemoğlu M, Kale A, Akdeniz N. ObstetrikNedenlerleAcilHisterektomiYapılan 52 OlgununAnalizi. Dicle Tıp Derg 2006; 33: 227–30.
18. 18. Kayabasoglu F, Guzin K, Aydogdu S, Sezginsoy S, Turkgeldi L, Gunduz G. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy in a tertiary Istanbul hospital. Arch GynecolObstet 2008; 278: 251–6.
19. 19. Evsen M. S., Sak M. E., Bozkurt Y., Kapan M., Bakır Ç. Nedbesiz uterus rüptürü: Bölgeselinsidans, nedenlervetedavi. Dicle Tıp Derg 2008; 35: 259–63.
20. 20. Chawla J, Arora CD, Paul M, Ajmani SN. Emergency obstetric hysterectomy: A retrospective study from a teaching hospital in north India over eight years. Oman Med J 2015; 30: 181–6.
21. 21. Agacayak E, Basaranoglu S, Tunc SY, et al. A comparison of maternal outcomes in complicated vaginal and cesarean deliveries. ClinExpObstetGynecol 2017; 44: 20–6.
22. 22. Umezurike CC, Feyi-Waboso PA, Adisa CA. Peripartum hysterectomy in Aba southeastern Nigeria. Aust New Zeal J ObstetGynaecol 2008; 48: 580–2.