MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4289945631 · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100080

Labor and delivery outcomes by delivery method in term deliveries in occiput posterior position: a population-based retrospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W4289945631 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Hannah Foggin, Arianne Albert, Nicole Minielly, Sarka Lisonkova, Nicole Koenig, Erin N. Jacobs, Geoffrey W. Cundiff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAJOG Global Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesMichael Smith Health Research BC
Mots-clésTerm (time)Position (finance)Retrospective cohort studyPopulationCohortMedicineOcciputSurgeryEconomicsPhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Occiput posterior is the most common malposition in labor. Deliveries in occiput posterior position have been shown to have higher rates of adverse short-term maternal and neonatal outcomes compared with deliveries in occiput anterior position. There are no guidelines providing recommendations nor summarizing risks of adverse outcomes by delivery method to inform the decision-making process in occiput posterior delivery management. Population-based studies examining the outcomes associated with various management processes of occiput posterior position at the time of labor or delivery are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the current management of term singleton occiput posterior deliveries in British Columbia, Canada and to examine the association between different management strategies and adverse outcomes by describing the rates of: occiput posterior malposition; and spontaneous vaginal delivery, operative vaginal delivery, and cesarean delivery from occiput posterior malposition. We also analyzed the rates of adverse labor and delivery outcomes stratified by fetal position and delivery mode, and the interaction effect of occiput posterior position and delivery mode on the rates of adverse outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of cephalic term singleton deliveries in British Columbia from 2004 to 2020, using the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry. The obstetrical adverse outcome index (a composite of 10 adverse maternal or neonatal events), adverse outcome index subcomponent rates, and adverse outcome index-derived weighted scores were compared between deliveries stratified by fetal position at delivery (occiput posterior or occiput anterior) and occiput posterior deliveries stratified by delivery method. Multivariable log-binomial logistic regression was used to model the adverse outcome index score. RESULTS: <.0001). Overall, adverse outcome index scores were significantly higher in persistent occiput posterior deliveries (8.8% had ≥1 adverse outcomes; adjusted rate ratio, 1.07 [1.01-1.14]) than in occiput posterior labors that rotated to occiput anterior deliveries; the most frequent adverse outcome was third- or fourth-degree lacerations. Neonatal adverse outcomes were also more frequent in occiput posterior delivery (4.3% vs 3.3%; adjusted rate ratio, 1.21 [1.10-1.35]), whereas maternal outcomes were similar between groups (4.8% vs 6.0%; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [0.96-1.13]). Among persistent occiput posterior deliveries, spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery had the lowest proportion of deliveries with ≥1 adverse outcomes (6.1% and 6.2%), whereas forceps deliveries had the highest (38.1%); the largest contributor to the adverse outcomes were third- or fourth-degree lacerations. Among occiput posterior deliveries with any adverse outcome, cesarean delivery had the highest Severity Index score, due in part to the inclusion of third- or fourth-degree tears (which are assigned a comparatively low score) as the most common adverse event in the other vaginal delivery modes, and because of outcomes with a higher severity score being associated with cesarean delivery, such as uterine rupture (a reason for cesarean delivery) and intensive care unit admission (an outcome following cesarean delivery). Overall, in a multivariable regression model, delivery mode and the interaction between delivery mode and occiput posterior position were significant predictors of a delivery with ≥1 adverse outcomes, whereas occiput posterior position itself was not. CONCLUSION: One in five singleton deliveries at term gestation had occiput posterior position in labor; most of these rotated to occiput anterior by delivery, which had better outcomes than persistent occiput posterior deliveries. Among the latter, spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery had the lowest frequency of adverse outcomes, whereas forceps deliveries had the highest. This study provides a robust updated analysis of birth outcomes following different occiput posterior management strategies, which can inform provider decision-making and counseling. Its observational design may limit its use for direct recommendations for management of occiput posterior malposition, yet the study helps to define the risks associated with different modes of delivery in the setting of occiput posterior malposition. With additional studies examining success rates of intermediate occiput posterior-occiput anterior rotation, other delivery management steps, and long-term outcomes, this study helps to define safe management of occiput posterior delivery.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,978

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,327 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2022
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAJOG Global ReportsMême sujetMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsTravaux en français237 207