Research Paper | Medical Science | India | Volume 8 Issue 3, March 2019
Evaluation of Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Conventional Labour Vs Programmed Labour in Low Risk Woman
S. S. Gayathri, M. Ajeetha Banu
Introduction Objective of the study is to compare the effects of programmed labour protocol with the conventional labour protocol with regards to adequacy of pain relief, duration of labour, blood loss, maternal and neonatal adverse effects. Material and methods: This was a prospective, monocentric clinical trial. Total of 300 women who attended Government Rajai Hospital, Madurai, were included in the study. All were low risk gravid women. After they fit into the inclusion criteria, protocol of programmed labour was implemented on them as developed by Daftary SN etal and the labour outcome was studied. Partogram was plotted for all patients recommended by WHO Results: In the study group 4.7 % had outlet forceps delivery and 4 % had caesarean section. Of the study group 26 % had excellent pain relief as compared to 0 % in control group. The mean rate of cervical dilation was 3.71cm/Hr in the study group and 1.53cm/Hr in the control group. The mean duration of active phase 1st stage, 2nd stage, 3rd stage of labour were 116.95mins, 21.23mins, 4.36mins respectively in the study group as compared to this 236.44mins, 23.57mins, 4.83mins respectively in the control group. Maternal and fetal outcome were comparable in both groups Conclusion: Programmed labour protocol provides adequate labour analgesia, augments the process of labour thereby shortens the duration of labour reduces blood loss during labour without adverse maternal and fetal effects.
Keywords: Programmed labour, Labour analgesia, Partogram
Edition: Volume 8 Issue 3, March 2019
Pages: 291 - 297
How to Cite this Article?
S. S. Gayathri, M. Ajeetha Banu, "Evaluation of Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Conventional Labour Vs Programmed Labour in Low Risk Woman", International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), https://www.ijsr.net/search_index_results_paperid.php?id=28021905, Volume 8 Issue 3, March 2019, 291 - 297