VAJİNAL DOĞUMUN KORKULAN KOMPLİKASYONLARINDAN OMUZ DİSTOSİSİNE YAKLAŞIMDA TERSİYER MERKEZ TECRÜBELERİMİZ

Year 2022, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 1233 - 1239, 01.07.2022

Burak Elmas , Burçin Salman Özgü , Arife Akay , Ecem Yücel Ayşegül Bestel İstemi Han Çelik , Ömer Lütfi Tapısız

https://doi.org/10.38136/jgon.1021443

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada 5 yıllık süre içerisinde gerçekleşen omuz distosisi vakalarının mevcut risk faktörlerini, vakaların yönetimini ve perinatal sonuçlarını inceleyerek bir tersiyer merkez verisi sunmak hedeflenmiştir.
Gereçler ve yöntem: 2013-2018 yılları arası vajinal doğum yapan 44522 hasta arasından, doğumunda omuz distosi yaşanan 479 hasta değerlendirilmiştir. Vakalara doğum dosyalarında mevcut bulunan “omuz distosisi olan bebeklerde izlem formu” kullanılarak retrospektif olarak ulaşılmıştır. Sosyodemografik özelliklerin yanısıra ultrasonografik özellikler , doğuma dair özellikler, distosi yönetiminde uygulanan yaklaşımlarla birlikte bebeklerin doğum sonrası özellikleri ve sekel durumları 2 yıllık ortopedik takipleriyle birlikte değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Kadınların yaş ortalaması 28.17, SAT’a göre gebelik haftası ortalaması 38.29 hafta, gravida ortalaması 2.34’tür. Kliniğimizin 5 yıllık değerlendirmesinde omuz distosisi oranı %1,07 olarak bulunmuştur. Vakaların %5.1’inde maternal komplikasyon görülmüş olup, %14.6’sında brakiyal pleksus hasarı bulunmakta, %9.6’sının klavikula kırığı bulunmakta, %1.3’ünün sekeli ise bulunmaktadır. Mc Robert’s + Suprapubik bası manevrası uygulananların %33’ünde brakiyal pleksus hasarı izlendiği ve arka omuz doğrultulması, Mc Robert’s ve Rubin manevralarında ise klaviküla kırığı görülme oranı diğerlerinden yüksek olduğu sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır.
Sonuç: Doğum öncesi tecrübeli obstetrisyenler tarafından yapılan sonografik ölçümler de maternal ve neonatal morbiditeler açısından fikir vericidir. Ayrıca omuz distosisiyle karşılaşılan vakalarda manevralar uygulanırken en güvenli manevraların seçilip doğru şekilde uygulanması maternal ve fetal komplikasyon oranlarını en aza indirmeye katkı sağlayabilir.

Keywords

Omuz distosisi, Vajinal Doğum, Manevralar

OUR TERTIARY CENTER EXPERIENCES IN APPROACHING SHOULDER DYSTOCIA FROM THE FEARED COMPLICATIONS OF VAGINAL DELIVERY

Abstract

Aim: In this study, it was aimed to present a tertiary center data by examining the current risk factors, management of cases and perinatal outcomes of shoulder dystocia cases that occurred over a 5-year period.
Materials and methods: Among 44522 patients who delivered vaginally between 2013 and 2018, 479 patients with shoulder dystocia at birth were evaluated. Cases were reached retrospectively using the “follow-up form in infants with shoulder dystocia” available in the birth files. In addition to sociodemographic features, ultrasonographic features, features of delivery, approaches applied in dystocia management, and postnatal features and sequelae of babies were evaluated together with their 2-year orthopedic follow-up.
Results: The mean age of the women was 28.17, the mean gestational week according to LMP was 38.29, and the mean gravida was 2.34. In the 5-year evaluation of our clinic, the rate of shoulder dystocia was found to be 1.07%. In 5.1% of the cases, maternal complications were found, 14.6% had brachial plexus damage, 9.6% had clavicle fracture and 1.3% had sequelae. It was concluded that brachial plexus damage was observed in 33% of those who underwent Mc Robert's + Suprapubic compression maneuver, and the incidence of clavicle fracture was higher in posterior shoulder delivery and Mc Robert's and Rubin maneuvers.
Conclusion: Sonographic measurements made by experienced obstetricians before birth are also informative in terms of maternal and neonatal morbidities. In addition, when performing maneuvers in cases with shoulder dystocia, choosing the safest maneuvers and applying them correctly may contribute to minimizing maternal and fetal complication rates.

Keywords

Shoulder dystocia, Vaginal Birth, Maneuvers

References

• 1. Resnick R. Management of shoulder dystocia girdle. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980;23:559-64.
• 2. Sokol R, Blackwell S. ACOG practice bulletin: Shoulder dystocia. Number 40, November 2002.(Replaces practice pattern number 7, October 1997). International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2003;80:87.
• 3. Hoffman MK, Bailit JL, Branch DW, Burkman RT, Van Veldhusien P, Lu L, et al. A comparison of obstetric maneuvers for the acute management of shoulder dystocia. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;117:1272.
• 4. Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1998;179:476-80.
• 5. Bahar AM. Risk factors and fetal outcome in cases of shoulder dystocia compared with normal deliveries of a similar birthweight. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1996;103:868-72.
• 6. Ouzounian JG, Gherman RB. Shoulder dystocia: are historic risk factors reliable predictors? American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2005;192:1933-5. 7. Acker DS, Sachs BP, Friedman EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1985;66:762-8.
• 8. Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Goodwin TM. Brachial plexus palsy: an in utero injury? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:1303-7.
• 9. Foad SL, Mehlman CT, Ying J. The epidemiology of neonatal brachial plexus palsy in the United States. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2008;90:1258-64.
• 10. Torki M, Barton L, Miller DA, Ouzounian JG. Severe brachial plexus palsy in women without shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:539-41.
• 11. Cunningham G, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J, Rouse D, Spond C. Williams Obstetrik. Ceylan Y, Yıldırım G, Gedikbaşı A, Aslan H, Gül A (Çevirenler) 23. Baskı, İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri, 2010: 481-7.
• 12. Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA, et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 332-46.
• 13. L.G. Williams. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Macrosomia In: Compendium of Selected Publications Volume II: Practice Bulletins. ACOG, 2008;663-673.
• 14. Gherman RB, Chauhan S, Ouzounian JG, Lerner H, Gonik B, Goodwin TM. Shoulder dystocia: the unpreventable obstetric emergency with empiric management guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;195(3):657-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.09.007.
• 15. Daly MV, Bender C, Townsend KE, et al. Outcomes associated with a structured prenatal counseling program for shoulder dystocia with brachial plexus injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 123.e1-5.
• 16.Sandmire HF, DeMott RK. Newborn brachial plexus palsy. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008; 28: 567-72.
• 17. Gurewitsch ED, Donithan M, Stallings SP, Moore PL, Agarwal S, Allen LM, et al. Episiotomy versus fetal manipulation in managing severe shoulder dystocia: a comparison of out- comes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):911-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.041.
• 18. Parantainen J, Palomäki O, Talola N, Uotila J. Clinical and sonographic risk factors and complications of shoulder dystocia-a case-control study with parity and gestational age matched controls. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;177:110-4.