Re-laparotomy after caesarean deliveries: Risk factors and how to avoid?. (January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ragab, A.; Mousbah, Y.; Barakat, R.; Zayed, A.; Badawy, A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. Volume 35:Number 1(2015)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 3
• Publication Date: 2015-01
• Subjects: Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2014.929644
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0144-3615

Abstract

<abstract> <title>Abstract</title> <p>The aim of this study was to explore the risk factors for and how to avoid re-laparotomy after caesarean delivery and to present the experience of a university tertiary care referral hospital. The study comprised of 2, 000 caesarean deliveries, among which re-laparotomy was needed in 18 patients (0.9). The study found that 16 of the 18 cases that needed re-laparotomy had previous caesarean sections (CS) and 9/18 had placenta praevia. The main indication for the procedure was internal haemorrhage (haemoperitoneum) (12/18, 66.6%). Significant haemoperitoneum of &gt; 2 litres was reported in six cases (33.3%). Maternal mortality occurred in 3/18 (16.6%) patients. The uterus was preserved in most patients (15 patients, 83.3%). A total of 12 patients needed re-suturing of the uterine incision; 10 patients had bilateral uterine artery ligation; and four patients had bilateral internal iliac artery ligation. Uterine compression B-Lynch suturing was needed in five patients with uterine atony. Six patients (33.3%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and were discharged well. Re-laparotomy after caesarean delivery has many risk factors leading to postoperative haemorrhage. Early signs, such as tachycardia and hypotension must be closely monitored to allow early intervention and to avoid morbidity and mortality related to late re-laparotomy.</p> </abstract>