6 -3 (31/1) 2020 — Boltaeva M.M., Akhmedov F.K. — A MODERN LOOK AT THE PROBLEM OF CAESAREAN SECTION(REVIEW)

A MODERN LOOK AT THE PROBLEM OF CAESAREAN SECTION(REVIEW)

Boltaeva M.M. -Bukhara State Medical Institute named after Abu Ali ibn Sino, Uzbekistan.

Akhmedov F.K. -Bukhara State Medical Institute named after Abu Ali ibn Sino, Uzbekistan.

Resume

Caesarean section (CA) (caesarean section) is a surgical operation in which the pregnant uterus is cut, the fetus and afterbirth are removed, the integrity of the uterine wall is restored. KS is one of the most common operations in obstetric practice, related to emergency aids, which should be able to be performed not only by every obstetrician­gynecologist, but also by a doctor of any specialty who owns surgical techniques. In modern obstetrics, KS is of great importance, since with a complicated course of pregnancy and childbirth, it allows you to preserve the health and life of the mother and child. CS as any surgical intervention can have adverse consequences both in the immediate postoperative period (bleeding, infection, pulmonary embolism (PE),  OS   embolism,  peritonitis), and in the remote periods of a woman’s life.

Key words: cesarean section, pregnancy, laparotomy, bleeding.

First page

26

Last page

29

For citation: Boltaeva M.M., Akhmedov F.K., A modern look at the problem of caesarean section(review) //New Day in Medicine 3(31)2020 26-29 https://cutt.ly/Uxc4kJ9

List of Refereces

  1. Буянова С.Н.. Юдина Н.В.. Барто Р.А. Редкие осложнения кесарева сечения – пузырно-маточные свищи // Рос. вестщ акуш-гин. 2018. № 3. С. 83-87. 18.
  2. Жаркин Н.Л.. Прохватилов С.А., Бурова Н.Л.. Гаврильчук Т.К. и др. Хирургическая реконструкция рубца на матке во время беременности. Показания. условия и риски // Акуш. и гин. 2018. № 10. С. 142-147.
  3. Гурьев Д.Ё.. Троханова О.В.. Гурьева М.С.. Абдуллаева Х.Г. и др. Применение классификации Робсона для анлиза работы акушерского стационара 3 уровня и поиска путей снижения частоты кесарева сечения // Мать и дитя в Кузбассе. 2018. № 4. С. 70-74.
  4. Радзинский В.Е.. Логутова Л.С.. Красноиольский В.И. Кеса­рево сечение. Проблемы абдоминального акушерства / под ред. В.И. Краотопольского. Специальное Издательство Меди- пинских Киш (СИМК). 2018. 224 с.
  5. Щукина Н.А.. Буянова С.Н.. Чечнева М.А.. Земскова Н.Ю. и др. Основные причины формирования несостоятельного руб­ца на матке после кесарева сечения // Рос. вести. акуш.-гиш 2018. № 4. С.
  6. Савельева Г.М.. Бреслав И.Ю. Разрыв оперированной матки во время беременности и родов // Вопр. гиш.акуш. и перинатол. 2015. Т. 14. № 3. С. 22-27
  7. ХамидоваН.Р.. Туксанова Д.И.. Негматуллаева М.Н.. Ахме­дов Ф.К.. современный подход к профилактике ранних пос­леродовых кровотечений. биология и интегративная медицина 2020
  8. Akhmedov F.K. Features of renal function and some indicators of homeostasis in women with mild preeclampsia // Europen Science Review. Austria. Vienna. 2015. № 4-5. – C. 58-60.
  9. Akhmedov F.K.. Negmatullaeva M.N.. KurbanovaZ.Sh. Modern views on the problem of preeclampsia // A new day in medicine.1 (21) -Tashkent. 2018. – p. 180-185.
  10. Akhmedov F.K..Role of study renal blood flow and concentration of uric acid in blood and urine in the diagnosis of preeclampsia – Биология и интегративная медицина. 2020.
  11. Visser G.H.A.. Ayres-de-Campos D.. Barnea E.R. et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic // Lancet. 2018. Vol. 392. N 10 155. P. 1286-1287. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(18)321135.
  12. Betr?n A.P.. Ye J.. Moller A.-B.. Zhang J. et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global. regional and national estimates: 1990- 2014 // PLoS One. 2016. Vol. 11. N 2. Article ID e0148343. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0148343.
  13. Occhi G.M.. de Lamare F.N.T.. Neri M.A. et al. Strategic measures to reduce the caesarean section rate in Brazil // Lancet. 2018. Vol. 392. N 10 155. P. 1290-1291. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32407- 3.
  14. Hoxha I.. Syrogiannouli L.. Braha M. et al. Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis // BMJ Open. 2017. Vol. 7. Article ID e016600.
  15. Zipori Y.. Grunwald O.. Ginsberg Y. et al.The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019. Vol. 220. N 2. P. 191.e1-191.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.028.
  16. Peress D.. Dude A.. Peaceman A. et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in triplet gestations by trial of labor versus planned cesarean delivery // J. Matern. FetalNeonatalMed. 2019. Vol. 32. N 11. P. 1874-1879. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1421931.
  17. Nakamura-Pereira M.. Esteves-Pereira A.P.. Gama S.G.N. et al. Elective repeat cesarean delivery in women eligible for trial of labor in Brazil // Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2018. Vol. 143. N 3. P. 351-359. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12660.
  18. Young C.B.. Liu S.. Muraca G.M. et al.; Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Mode of delivery after a previous cesarean birth. and associated maternal and neonatal morbidity // CMAJ. 2018. Vol. 190. N 18. P. E556-E564. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.170371.
  19. Sawada M.. Matsuzaki S.. Nakae R. et al. Treatment and repair of uterine scar dehiscence during cesarean section // Clin. Case Rep. 2017. Vol. 5. N 2. P. 145-149. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.766.
  20. Tulandi T.. Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women // J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016. Vol. 23. P. 893-902.
6-26-29-3-31-2020-

file

download