Is Postpartum Uterine Involution Impacted by Instrumental or Operative Procedures? Ultrasound Study

  • Paliulyte V
  • Drasutiene G
  • Ramasauskaite D
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: Practitioners are continuously concerned with the differences between the normal puerperium and the uterine involution after operated deliveries. This prospective observational study pays attention to the uterine involution period after the instrumental or operative delivery and compares the results with those observed in uncomplicated labour. Methods: Over two postpartum months 66 women after normal (48) and complicated (18) labour were examined for repeated uterine parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS version 21. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the median uterine size parameters or the uterine artery indices after the normal delivery and instrumental/operative uterine manipulations during the involution period, except for a faster declining trend observed in anteroposterior diameter within the first month after normal labour. The di-astolic notch was more frequent in early puerperium after complicated labor, but less frequent later. The diastolic notch did not appear in all the postpar-tum women even two months after labour. There was evidence of more frequent gas detected in the pathological rather than in the physiological group. Conclusion: Postpartum uterine involution is not impacted by instrumental or operative procedures. After complicated labour gas appearance is more common, but it does not necessarily indicate the presence of endometritis or retained placental tissues.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Paliulyte, V., Drasutiene, G. S., Ramasauskaite, D., Bartkeviciene, D., Zakareviciene, J., & Kurmanavicius, J. (2018). Is Postpartum Uterine Involution Impacted by Instrumental or Operative Procedures? Ultrasound Study. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 08(13), 1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2018.813131

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