Panduro-Barón JG, Panduro-Moore EG, Pérez-Molina JJ, Rosas-Gómez ESM, Peraza-Martínez D,Quezada-Figueroa NA

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 519-524
PDF size: 194.51 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The fetus in the course of pregnancy adopts different positions regarding its situation, presentation and position, making the fetal static of the fetus is changing.
Objetive: To know the fetal static throughout the pregnancy through the frequency of the fetal situation, presentation and position, identifying the factors that condition these changes.
Materials and Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study of 7500 ultrasounds performed at the Hospital Civil of Guadalajara Dr. Juan J. Menchaca, assessing fetal static (status, position or back and presentation), analyzing maternal age, obstetric history and placental location. It was used to identify possible factors that influence fetal static the mean, χ² and odds ratio (OR).
Results: The fetal presentation was cephalic in 6,045 fetuses, pelvic 1177 and transverse 278. In relation to the back, were left 3,981, right in 3026 and other types 493. The placenta was reported on the anterior face of uterus 3626, posterior face 2774, fundic 581, previous placentas 89 and other sites 430. The average gestational age was 31 weeks. When analyzing the results we found that at lower gestational age abnormal fetal statics were more frequent, as in women older than 35 years, three or more pregnancies and placenta previa history (p‹0.05).
Conclusions: Maternal age≥ 35 years, preterm gestational age, multiparity (≥ 3 births) and the presence of a placenta previa are associated with a higher frequency of abnormal fetal static.

REFERENCES

1. Orozco MJ. Trabajo de parto y parto. En: Panduro BJG, Orozco MJ. Obstetricia. 4ª edición. Guadalajara: Agus Solución Impresa: Guadalajara, 2015;67-108.

2. Kish K. Presentación anormal y prolapso de cordón. En: DeCherney AH, Nathan L, Laufer N, Roma AS. Diagnóstico y tratamiento ginecoobstétricos. 11ª edición. México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 2014, 317-33.

3. Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser WD. Effect of fetal position on second stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:763-72.

4. Ferreira JCP, Borowski D, Czuba B, Cnota W, et al. The evolution of fetal presentation during pregnancy: a retrospective, descriptive cross-sectional study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:660-663.

5. Witkop CT, Zhang J, Sun W, Troendle J. Natural history of fetal position during pregnancy and risk of nonvertex delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:875-80.

6. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, Sheffield JS. Obstetricia de Williams. 24ª edición. México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana, 2015;408-534.

7. Guittier MJ, Othenin GV, Irion O, Boulvain M. Maternal positioning to correct occipito-posterior fetal position in labour: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Children 2014;14:83-89.

8. Ahmad A, Webb SS, Early B, Sitch A. Association between fetal position at onset of labor and mode of delivery: a prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43:176-82.