The Risk of Cesarean Delivery in Short Saudi Women

Nourah H. Al Qahtani, Salha Al Ganmi, Asma Badran

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia..

DOI: 10.4236/ijcm.2012.33048                

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between maternal height of <155 cm and the risk of caesarean delivery due to failure to progress (FTP) among nulliparous saudi women. Design: Observational cohort study. Material and Method: A total of 405 term (GA > 37 weeks), uncomplicated singleton nulliparous pregnant women were enrolled on admission to labour room. The patients were divided into two groups based on maternal height, >155 cm (247 cases) as control and < 155 cm (158 cases) as study group. The medical records of these women were reviewed. Various baseline clinical characteristics were collected. Maternal characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded. Results: Caesarean section rate for all indications was higher among study group than control group (26.6% and 19.4% respec-tively, p = 0.023). Significant difference was observed in the rate of caesarean delivery due to failure to progress (7.3% and 12% in control and study group respectively, p-value 0.038). The rate of caesarean delivery due to failure to progress was highest among those with height 150 - 155 cm (p-value 0.022). Mean birth weight was significantly higher among control group than study group (3137 ± 403 g and 3030 ± 408 respectively, p-value 0.010). Conclusion: Term singleton nulliparous Saudi pregnant women with maternal height 151 - 154 cm were associated with a greater likelih-ood of caesarean section for failure to progress. Women with height <150 cm did not have increased cesarean section rate. However, mean birth weight was significantly lower in this group.

Keywords

Maternal Height; Cesarean Delivery; Failure to Progress

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 218,” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington DC, 1995.
[2]	World Health Organization, “Maternal Mortality: A Global Factbook,” Division of Family Health, Geneva, 1991.
[3]	American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 102: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician Gynecologists,” 2003, pp. 1445-1454.
[4]	S. Kirchengast and B. Hart-mann, “Short Stature Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Caesarean Deliveries in Low Risk Population,” Acta Medica Lituanica, Vol. 14, No. 1, 200, pp. 1-6
[5]	K. M. Merchanta, J. Villarb and E. Kestler, “Maternal Height and Newborn Size Relative to Risk of Intrapartum Caesarean Delivery and Perinatal Distress,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 108, No. 7, 2001, pp. 689-696
[6]	A. Rozenholc, S. Ako, R. Leke and M. Boulvain, “The Diagnostic Accuracy of External Pelvimetry and Maternal Height to Predict Dystocia in Nulliparous Women: A Study in Cameroon,” International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 114, No. 5, 2007, pp. 630-635. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01294.x
[7]	World Health Organization, “Maternal Anthropometry and Pregnancy Outcomes. A WHO Collaborative Study,” WHO Bulletin, Vol. 73, 1995, pp. 1-69.
[8]	W. N. Ogala and L. Audu, “Predicting Conception and Safe Delivery of a Macrosomic Baby,” Central African Journal of Medicine, Vol. 42, No. 11, 1996, pp. 316-319.
[9]	L. Turcot, S. Marcoux, W. D. Fraser, “Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Operative Delivery in Nulliparous Women,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 176, No. 2, 1997, pp. 395-402. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70505-2
[10]	N. Wongcharoenkiat and D. Boriboonhirunsarn, “Maternal Height and the Risk of Cesarean Delivery in Nulliparous Women,” Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, Vol. 89, Suppl. 4, 2006, pp. S65-S69.
[11]	B. J. McGuinness and A. N. Trivedi, “Maternal Height as a Risk Factor for Caesarean Section Due to Failure to Progress in Labour,” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1999, pp. 152-154. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.1999.tb03360.x
[12]	B. M?ller and G. Lindmark, “Short Stature: An Obstetric Risk Factor? A Comparison of Two Villages in Tanzania,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Vol. 76, No. 5, 1997, pp. 394-397. doi:10.3109/00016349709047817
[13]	T. J. Hashim and S. A. Moawed, “The Relation of Low Birth Weight to Psychosocial Stress and Maternal Anthropometric Measurements,” Saudi Medical Journal, Vol. 21, No. 7, 2000, pp. 649-654
[14]	L. Brabin, F. Verhoeff and B. J. Brabin, “Maternal Height, Birhtweight and Cephalo-Pelvic Disproportion in Urban Nigeria and Rural Malawi,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Vol. 81, No. 6, 2002, pp. 502-507. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.810605.x
[15]	A. P. Camilleri, “The Obstetric Significance of Short Stature,” European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1981, pp. 347-356. doi:10.1016/0028-2243(81)90080-0
[16]	D. Sokal, L. Sawadogo and A. Adjibade, “Short Stature and Cepha-lo-Pelvic Disproportion in Burkina Faso West Africa,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1991, pp. 347-350. doi:10.1016/0020-7292(91)90671-Q
[17]	B. J. McGuinness and A. N. Trivedi, “Maternal Height as a Risk Factor for Cesarean Section Due to Failure to Pregress in La-bou,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1999, pp. 152-154. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.1999.tb03360.x
[18]	K. M. Merchant, J. Villar and E. Kestler, “Maternal Height and Newborn Size Relative to Risk of Intrapartum Caesarean Delivery and Perinatal Distress,” International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 108, No. 7, 2001, pp. 689-696.