Retrospective evaluation of indications and birth results of cesarean section due to ophthalmologic diseases

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 4, 287 - 291, 04.07.2020

Bora Coşkun Serdar Özateş Buğra Coşkun Mehmet Ferdi Kıncı Coşkun Şimşir

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.559681

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the outcomes of cesarean section due to ophthalmologic indications. 

Methods: This retrospective clinical study included 40,190 patients underwent cesarean section due to ophthalmological indications between January 2013 – August 2015 in MLP Care Group Hospitals (It includes 32 hospitals). Demographic data, ophthalmologic history and indications and surgical outcomes of caesarean section was assessed.

Results: Of the 53 patients with caesarean delivery due to ophthalmologic indications, 32 (60.4%) had high degree myopia, 7 (13.2%) had degenerative myopia, 8 (15.1%) had history of ocular surgery, 2 (3.8%) had history of vitreoretinal surgery due to retinal detachment, 2 (3.8%) had glaucoma with uncontrolled intraocular pressure, 1 (1.9%) had retinitis pigmentosa and 1 (1.9%) had optic neuritis.

Conclusions: Ratio of ophthalmic indications is small within all cesarean indications and further longitudinal studies are needed to prevent from unnecessary cesarean section. 

Keywords

cesarean section, myopia, retinal detachment

References

• 1. Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J. Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? Trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth 2011;38:99-104.
• 2. Erol H, Özdemir A. [Health reforms and the evaluation of health expenditures in Turkey]. Sosyal Güvenlik Dergisi 2014,4:9-34. [Article in Turkish]
• 3. Ulubay M, Öztürk M, Fidan U, Keskin U, Fıratlıgil FB, Kıncı MF, et al. Skin incision lengths in caesarean section. Cukurova Med J 2016,41:82-6.
• 4. Festin MR, Laopaiboon M, Pattanittum P, Ewens MR, Henderson-Smart DJ, Crowther CA; SEA-ORCHID Study Group. Caesarean section in four South East Asian countries: reasons for, rates, associated care practices and health outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009,9:17.
• 5. Puzio M, Szczurowicz A, Rogoza A, Zwaliński M. [Non-obstetric indications for cesarean section from five years of material]. Ginekol Pol 1996,67:383-6. [Article in Polish]
• 6. Taner P, Akarsu C. [Ophthalmic changes in pregnancy]. J Ret-Vit 2001,9:169-78. [Article in Turkish]
• 7. Socha MW, Piotrowiak I, Jagielska I, Kazdepka-Ziemińska A, Szymański M, Duczmal M, et al. [Retrospective analysis of ocular disorders and frequency of cesarean sections for ocular indications in 2000-2008 -- our own experience]. Ginekol Pol 2010;81:188-91. [Article in Polish]
• 8. Chiu H, Steele D, McAlister C, Lam WC. Delivery recommendations for pregnant females with risk factors for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Can J Ophthalmol 2015;50:11-8.
• 9. Loncarek K, Petrovic O, Brajac I. Myopia and operative delivery in Croatia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:287-8.
• 10. Inglesby DV, Little BC, Chignell AH. Surgery for detachment of the retina should not affect a normal delivery. BMJ 1990;300:980.
• 11. Psenkova P, Bucko M, Braticak M, Baneszova R, Zahumensky J. Impact of introducing specific measures to reduce the frequency of cesarean delivery for non‐obstetric indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;142:23-7.
• 12. Mackensen F, Paulus WE, Max R, Ness T. Ocular changes during pregnancy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014;111:567-76.
• 13. Landau D, Seelenfreund MH, Tadmor O, Silverstone BZ, Diamant Y. The effect of normal childbirth on eyes with abnormalities predisposing to rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1995;233:598-600.
• 14. Jünemann AG, Sterk N, Rejdak R. [Influence of mode of delivery on pre-existing eye diseases]. Ophthalmologe 2012;109:229-34. [Article in German]
• 15. Mohammadi SF, Letafat-Nejad M, Ashrafi E, Delshad-Aghdam H. A survey of ophthalmologists and gynecologists regarding termination of pregnancy and choice of delivery mode in the presence of eye diseases. J Curr Ophthalmol 2017;29:126-32.