Uterine Packing with Gauze Versus Bakri Balloon for Arresting Atonic Postpartum Hemorrhage after Cesarean Delivery

0Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: There is no adequately sufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Objective: To assess the safety, efficacy and acceptability of uterine packing with gauze compared to Bakri balloon tamponade for treatment of atonic PPH after cesarean section. Patients and Methods: A prospective observational study. A total of 176 patients with atonic PPH after cesarean section were treated either with uterine packing with gauze (n=84) or Bakri balloon tamponade (n=92). The success rate together with early and late complications were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: 90.4 percent of individuals with uterine packing were able to cease their active bleeding compared to 75 percent of those with the Bakri balloons (p<0.05). The uterine packing group's surgery took longer time, and the Bakri Balloon group's requirement for further vascular ligation was much higher, indicating a significant difference in procedure duration and need for further intervention (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in other operational and postoperative statistics between the two groups of patients. Uterine packing patients were more likely to be accepted by the patients (p<0.05), more satisfied with the surgery (p<0.001), and more likely to recommend it to others (p<0.001). Conclusion: Although uterine packing with gauze may require longer time to insert with similar safety to Bakri balloon, yet it is more effective and more acceptable, less costly and readily available.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Elshamy, E., Gaber, W., & Shaheen, A. E. (2022). Uterine Packing with Gauze Versus Bakri Balloon for Arresting Atonic Postpartum Hemorrhage after Cesarean Delivery. Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 88(1), 2878–2882. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhm.2022.242763

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free