Face presentation at term: a forgotten issue

Face presentation at term: incidence, risk factors and influence on maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The incidence, diagnosis, management and outcome of face presentation at term were analysed.

METHODS

A retrospective, gestational age-matched case-control study including 27 singletons with face presentation at term was conducted between April 2006 and February 2021. For each case, four women who had the same gestational age and delivered in the same month with vertex position and singletons were selected as the controls (control group, n = 108). Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the risk factors of face presentation. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of the face presentation group were followed up.

RESULTS

The incidence of face presentation at term was 0.14‰. After conditional logistic regression, the two factors associated with face presentation were high parity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.76, 95% CI 1.19-6.39)] and amniotic fluid index > 18 cm (aOR 2.60, 95% CI 1.08-6.27). Among the 27 cases, the diagnosis was made before the onset of labor, during the latent phase of labor, during the active phase of labor, and during the cesarean section in 3.7% (1/27), 40.7% (11/27), 11.1% (3/27) and 44.4% (12/27) of cases, respectively. In one case of cervical dilation with a diameter of 5 cm, we innovatively used a vaginal speculum for rapid diagnosis of face presentation. The rate of cesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage ≥ 500 ml in the face presentation group was higher than that of the control group (88.9% vs. 13.9%, P < 0.001, and 14.8% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.024), but the Apgar scores were similar in both sets of newborns. Among the 27 cases of face presentation, there were three cases of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, including one case of neonatal right brachial plexus injury and two cases of severe laceration of the lower segment of the uterus with postpartum haemorrhage ≥ 1000 ml.

CONCLUSIONS

Face presentation was rare. Early diagnosis is difficult, and thus easily neglected. High parity and amniotic fluid index > 18 cm are risk factors for face presentation. An early diagnosis and proper management of face presentation could lead to good maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Intrapartum ultrasound for the diagnosis of cephalic malpositions and malpresentations

Fetuses with malpresentation and malposition during labor represent important clinical challenges. Women with fetuses presenting with malpresentation or malposition are at risk of increased perinatal complications, such as cesarean delivery, failure of operative vaginal delivery, neonatal acidemia, and neonatal intensive care admission. Intrapartum ultrasound has been found to be more reliable than digital examination in assessing malpresentation and malposition. The use of intrapartum ultrasound to assess fetal position and presentation, in addition to fetal attitude, to predict and aid in decision making regarding delivery can help in improving management decision making. Cephalic malpresentation and malposition is a unique subset of fetal orientation and can benefit from intrapartum ultrasound identification and assessment for delivery.

Adverse obstetric outcomes in public hospitals of southern Ethiopia: the role of parity

Purpose: Direct obstetric causes have a significant contribution for severe maternal morbidities and mortalities, although the effect of grand multiparity on adverse obstetric outcomes remains controversial across studies. This study aimed to compare obstetric outcomes in grand multiparous and low multiparous women in two hospitals of southern Ethiopia.Materials and methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in one general and one comprehensive specialized hospitals in 2018. Four hundred and sixty-one mothers were included in the study. Data were collected by structured questionnaire and extraction sheets from clinical documents, and were analyzed using STATA version 14 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).Results: About 39% of the included mothers had at least one adverse obstetric outcome. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, antepartum hemorrhage, and premature rupture of membrane and were higher in the grand multiparous mothers. However, obstructed labor and risk of cesarean delivery were higher in low multiparous women. History of medical illnesses, previous cesarean delivery, and high birth weight were independent predictors of adverse maternal outcomes regardless of parity. However, parity did not show statistically significant difference in obstetric outcomes.Conclusion: Parity did not show statistically significant difference in experiencing adverse obstetric outcomes in women. Early identification and treatment of high-risk mothers is recommended regardless of parity.

Inadequate Prenatal Visit and Home Delivery as Determinants of Perinatal Outcomes: Does Parity Matter?

Background

Adverse perinatal outcomes are still high in developing countries. Contradicting evidences were reported about the effect of parity on adverse perinatal outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare perinatal outcomes in grand multiparous and low multiparity women in Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital and Adare General Hospital of Ethiopia.

Methods

Comparative cross-sectional study design was employed to include 461 mothers from February to June 2018. Data were collected by structured questionnaire using interview and from patient charts. Data were entered using EPI-DATA version 4.4.2.0. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were computed using STATA version 14 computer software.

Results

Of all study participants, 24.9% (95% Confidence interval: 21.1%-29.1%) had at least one adverse perinatal outcome. Stillbirth (38.9), low Apgar score (51.9%), and congenital malformation (3.70%) were frequently occurred complications in grand multiparas compared to low multiparous women. Nevertheless, meconium aspiration, need for resuscitation, and macrosomia were higher in low multiparous women (9.84%, 14.75%, and 57.38%, respectively). Less than four prenatal visits (AOR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.92) and previous home delivery (AOR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.04, 3.33) were independent predictors of adverse perinatal outcomes. However, parity did not show statistically significant difference in perinatal outcomes.

Conclusion

This finding underscores the fact that frequency of antenatal care and place of delivery are significant predictors of perinatal outcomes. However, parity did not show statistically significant difference in perinatal outcomes. Women empowerment, promoting health facility delivery, and early, comprehensive antenatal care are needed.