Dinoproston uygulanan ve uygulanmayan gebelerde doğum algısı ve çıktılarının karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Özet Amaç: Araştırma, dinoproston uygulanan ve uygulanmayan gebelerde doğum algısı ve çıktılarının karşılaştırılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırmaya alınma kriterlerini taşıyan 160 gebe (dinoprostan uygulanan 80 gebe ve dinoprostan uygulanmayan 80 gebe) katılımıyla tanımlayıcı-karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma yapıldı. Veriler “Kişisel Bilgi Formu”, "Görsel Kıyaslama Ölçeği (GKÖ)", " APGAR Skoru Değerlendirme Skalası " ve " Annenin Doğumu Algılaması Ölçeği (ADAÖ) " kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve ki-kare önemlilik testi kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p <0.05 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırma kapsamındaki gebeler tanıtıcı ve obstetrik değişkenler bakımından homojenlik göstermektedir. Gebelerin GKÖ puan ortalamaları karşılaştırıldığında; dinoprostan uygulanmayan gebelerde ağrı algılama düzeyleri dinoprostan uygulanan gebelere göre uterus kontraksiyonları sonrası ve aktif fazda diğer fazlara göre yüksek olduğu ve ağrı puan ortalamaları arasındaki farkın istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı olduğu saptanmıştır (p=0.007). Dinoproston uygulanan ve uygulanmayan grupları arasında doğum sürelerinin karşılaştırılmasında toplam süre için gruplar arasındaki farkın istatistiksel olarak önemli olduğu belirlenmiştir (p=0.001). Dinoproston uygulanan ve uygulanmayan gruplarda 1. ve 5. dakikadaki Apgar skorları arasındaki puan farkının istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı olmadığı belirlenmiştir (p=0.73). Araştırmada, ADAÖ toplam puan ortalaması dinoprostan uygulanan grupta 84.38±11.96 ve dinoprostan uygulanmayan grupta 76.98±14.98 olarak bulunmuş ve gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak fark saptanmıştır (p=0.001). Sonuç: Araştırmada kullanılan dinoprostanın doğum ağrısında ve annenin doğumu algılamasında etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışma sonucunda dinoproston tedavisinin yenidoğan APGAR skorlarını etkilemediği görülmüştür. Anahtar Kelimeler: Dinoprostan, Doğum Ağrısı, Doğum Algısı, Doğum Çıktısı, Gebelik.

Keywords

• Dinoprostan
• Doğum Ağrısı
• Doğum Algısı
• Doğum Çıktısı
• Gebelik.

Comparison of Perception of Birth and Outputs in Pregnant with and without Dinoprostone: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: The research was carried out to compare the perception of birth and outcomes of pregnant women who were both administered and not administered dinoprostone. Methods: A descriptive-comparative study involving 160 pregnant women (80 with dinoprostone, 80 without) was conducted. Data were collected using a Personal Information Form, Visual Analog Scale, APGAR Score Evaluation Scale, and Maternal Birth Perception Scale. Descriptive statistics and a chi-square significance test were used to analyze the data. The statistical significance level has been accepted as p <0.05. Results: Pregnant women within the scope of the study show homogeneity in terms of introductory and obstetric variables. When the mean mean scores of the pregnant women were compared; It was found that the pain perception levels of the pregnant women who were not administered dinoprostane were higher after uterine contractions and in the active phase compared to the other phases. The difference between the mean pain scores was statistically significant (p=0.007). In comparing delivery times between groups that administered and did not administered dinoprostone, it was determined that the difference between the groups for the total time was statistically significant (p=0.001). It was determined that the difference in APGAR scores at the 1st and 5th minutes in the groups administered and not administered dinoprostone was not statistically significant (p=0.73). In the study, the mean POBS total score was found to be 84.38±11.96 in the group administered dinoprostane and 76.98 ± 14.98 in the group not applied dinoprostane, and a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.001). Conclusion: It has been observed that dinoprostane used in the study is effective in labor pain and the mother's perception of delivery. As a result of the study, it was observed that dinoprostone treatment did not affect the newborn APGAR scores. Keywords: Dinoprostane, Birth Pain, Birth Perception, Birth Output, Pregnancy.

Keywords

• : Dinoprostane
• Birth Pain
• Birth Perception
• Birth Output
• Pregnancy.

References

1. McDonald JS. Obstetric pain. In: McMahon SB, Koltzenburg M, editors. Wall and Melzack's Textbook of Pain. 5th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2006. p. 793-816. Lyrenas S, Clason I, Ulmsten U. In vivo controlled release of PGE2 from a vaginal insert (0.8 mm, 10 mg) during induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:169-78.
2. Bhattacharyya TK, Shandil MS. Comparison of intracervical prostaglandin E2 and intravenous oxytocin in induction of labour. Med J Armed Forces India. 1998;54:225-8.
3. Leszczyńska-Gorzelak B, Laskowska M, Oleszczuk J. Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 in the preinduction and induction of labor. Med Sci Monit. 2001;7:1023-8.
4. Yörük Ö, Öksüzoğlu A, Engin-Üstün Y, Aktulay A, Yapar Eyi EG, Erkaya S. Comparison of the use of dinoprostone and oxytocin in labor induction in pregnant women with a Bishop score of 4 and below. J Perinatol. 2013;21:107-12.
5. Çetinkaya SE, Söylemez F. Factors affecting success in labor induction and labor induction methods. Ankara Univ Fac Med Mag. 2013;66:25-32.
6. De Bonrostro Torralba C, Tejero Cabrejas EL, Envid Lázaro BM, Franco Royo MJ, Roca Arquillué M, Campillos Maza JM. Low-dose vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:913-9.
7. Wang X, Zhang C, Li X, Qi H, Liu Q, Lei J. Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: A single-center randomized control trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;154:436-43.
8. Beyer J, Jäger Y, Balci D, Kolb G, Weschenfelder F, Seeger S, et al. Induction of labor at term with oral misoprostol or as a vaginal insert and dinoprostone vaginal insert: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2022;82:868-73.

9. Iravani M, Zarean E, Janghorbani M, Bahrami M. Women's needs and expectations during normal labor and delivery. J Educ Health Promot. 2015;4:31-7.
10. Nilvér H, Begley C, Berg M. Measuring women's childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:203.
11. Gungor I, Beji NK. Development and psychometric testing of the scales for measuring maternal satisfaction in normal and caesarean birth. Midwifery. 2012;28:348-57.
12. Rudman A, El-Khouri B, Waldenström U. Women's satisfaction with intrapartum care: a pattern approach. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59:474-87.
13. Bond MR, Pilowsky I. Subjective assessment of pain and its relationship to the administration of analgesics in patients with advanced cancer. J Psychosom Res. 1966;10:203-8.
14. Eti Aslan F. Pain assessment methods. J Cumhuriyet Univ Sch Nurs. 2002;6:9-16.
15. Cline ME, Herman J, Shaw ER, Morton RD. Standardization of the visual analogue scale. Nurs Res. 1992;41:378-80.
16. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953;32:260-7. Apgar V, Holiday DA, James LS, Weisbrot IM, Berrien C. Evaluation of the newborn infant: Second report. JAMA. 1958;168:1985-8.
17. American Academy of Pediatrics and American Heart Association. Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation. 6th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2011.
18. Marut JS, Mercer RT. Comparison of primiparas’ perceptions of vaginal and cesarean births. Nurs Res. 1979;28:260-5.
19. Fawcett J, Knauth D. The factor structure of the perception of birth scale. Nurs Res. 1996;45:83-6. Gungor I, Beji NK. Effects of fathers’ attendance at labor and delivery on the experience of childbirth in Turkey. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29:213-31.
20. Jolivet S, Delavallade M, Giraud A, Chauleur C, Raia-Barjat T. Mode of delivery after labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone versus oral misoprostol for women with unfavorable cervix at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;285:7-11.
21. Ting NS, Ding DC, Wei YC. Comparison of the dinoprostone vaginal insert and dinoprostone tablet for the induction of labor in primipara: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Med. 2022;11:3519.
22. Yamaguchi M, Takakura S, Enomoto N, Teishikata Y, Kitamura A, Maki S, et al. Comparison of perinatal outcomes between controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) and metreurynter for cervical ripening in labor induction: a retrospective single-center study in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47:4256-62.
23. Anh ND, Duc TA, Ha NT, Giang DT, Dat DT, Thuong PH, et al. Dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor in women with low-risk pregnancies: a prospective study. Med Arch. 2022;76:39-44.
24. Montgomery KS. Apgar scores: examining the long-term significance. J Perinat Educ. 2000;9:5-9.
25. Sire F, Ponthier L, Eyraud JL, Catalan C, Aubard Y, Mazeau PC. Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks. Sci Rep. 2022;12:14996.