MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402184289 · doi:10.1055/a-2408-7813

Unintended Upper Uterine Wall Extensions at the Time of Cesarean Delivery: Risk Factors and Associated Adverse Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes

2024· article· en· W4402184289 on OpenAlexaff
Tzuria Peled, Noa Saar, Giulia M. Muraca, Hen Y. Sela, Sorina Grisaru‐Granovsky, Misgav Rottenstreich

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Perinatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCesarean deliveryObstetricsPreterm deliveryAdverse effectRisk factorPregnancyGynecologyFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to estimate the frequency of unintended upper uterine wall extensions during cesarean delivery (CD) and identify associated risk factors and adverse outcomes.A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted, including patients who underwent CD between 2005 and 2021. Demographic factors, obstetric history, CD indications, delivery and surgical characteristics, adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between those with unintended upper uterine wall extensions during CD and those without extensions. Crude and adjusted estimates (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were used.Among 30,517 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 117 (0.4%) had an unintended upper uterine wall extension. In univariate analysis, upper uterine wall extensions were associated with higher rates of intrapartum CD, second-stage CD, unplanned or emergency CD, CD following failed vacuum delivery or trial of labor after CD, chorioamnionitis, prolonged labor, increased vaginal exams, lower fetal head station, and higher birth weight. During surgery, higher rates of general anesthesia, significant intraperitoneal adhesion, fetal malpresentation, and fetal extraction by the leg were observed. Multivariable analysis identified fetal extraction not by head (adjusted OR [aOR]: 9.17, 95% CI: 5.35-15.73), vertex fetal presentation (aOR: 3.65, 95% CI: 1.81-7.35), second-stage CD (aOR: 3.07, 95% CI: 1.24-7.59), and trial of labor after cesarean (aOR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.08-3.84) as significant risk factors for unintended upper uterine wall extensions. Additionally, upper uterine wall extensions were associated with higher rates of maternal and neonatal complications, including longer operating times, excessive bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, intraperitoneal drainage, blood product transfusion, puerperal fever, paralytic ileus, Apgar score < 7 at 1 and 5 minutes, and fetal intracranial hemorrhage.Our study identifies risk factors for unintended upper uterine wall extensions during CD. While these extensions are infrequent, their occurrence is associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity. · Unintended upper uterine wall extensions occur in 0.4% of cesarean deliveries.. · Significant risk factors include fetal extraction not by head and second-stage CD.. · Extensions are associated with increased maternal complications like excessive bleeding and prolonged surgery.. · Neonatal complications include lower Apgar scores and intracranial hemorrhage.. · Awareness of these risks is critical for improving cesarean delivery outcomes..

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PerinatologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207