Assessment Of Duration Of Second Stage Of Labour and Maternal Outcome: A Teaching Hospital Based Study

Authors

  • Amita Sharma Associate Professor,Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology,Govt Medical College, Datia,MP,India
  • Poorva Badkur Assistant Professor,Department of OBG,Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal,M.P,India
  • Pallavi Verma Classified Specialist (OBG),M.Ch fellow (Gynae Oncology) AIIMS, Rishikesh,Uttarakhand,India

Keywords:

Antepartum morbidity, Marital status, Labour

Abstract

Background: The conventional 2-hour rule of the second stage of labour dates to the 1800’s and is defined as the period between full cervical dilatation of 10 cm and the birth of the baby. The present study was conducted to assess duration of second stage of labour and maternal outcome.
Materials & Methods: 56 women in labour who reached second stage were included. Education, occupation, marital status and reason for referral was recorded. Maternal outcome of the study was recorded.Results: Marital status was single in 8, married in 40 and widowed in 8 cases. Education status was illiterate in 12, primary in 20 and secondary in 24. Occupation was housewife in 25, private job in 18 and labourer in 13 cases. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). The reason for referral was post- term in 7, prolong labour in 3, PROM in 12, hypertension in 8 and better care in 26. Antepartum morbidity was PROM in 8 and HT in 6. Mode of delivery was SVD in 46, CS in 4, vacuum in 4 and forcep in 2 cases. Duration of SSOL (minutes) <30 minutes was seen in 5, <1 hour in 20, <2 hours in 35, <3 bours in 52, <4 hours in 54 and >4 hours in 4 cases. The difference was significant (P< 0.05).Conclusion: Premature rupture of membrane and hypertension was found as most common antepartum morbidity.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-27

How to Cite

Amita Sharma, Poorva Badkur, & Pallavi Verma. (2021). Assessment Of Duration Of Second Stage Of Labour and Maternal Outcome: A Teaching Hospital Based Study. International Journal of Health and Clinical Research, 4(10), 135–137. Retrieved from https://ijhcr.com/index.php/ijhcr/article/view/1616