Ретроспектив текширув натижасида Республика перинатал марказида 2017 йил 1 январидан 31 декабргача бўлган 5551 тa туғруқлар, улардан 1966 тa кесар кесиш амалиёти Робсон классификацияси ёрдамида 10 тa гуруҳга ажратилиб, ўрганилди вa таҳлил қилинди. Робсон классификацияси перинатал марказда кесар кесишни камайтириш заҳираларини аниқлашга имкон берди: бачадонда чандиқли хомиладор аёлларни табиий йўл орқали туғдириш, ҳомила чаноқ билан келганда ҳомилани бошига айлантириш ва табиий йўл орқали туғдириш, обструктив туғруқни ўз вақтида ташхис қилиш учун ва қарор қабул қилиш учун партограммадан унумли фойдаланиш, юрак уриши аритмиялари бўлган ҳомиладор аёллар акушерлик тактикаси бўйича клиник протокол ишлаб чиқиш
This study was performed in Republican Perinatal Center in Uzbekistan, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. All women delivered during this period were classified according to the Robson classification consisting of 10 groups using their maternal characteristics and obstetric history. There were 5551 births, of which 1966 - from cesarean section. Robson's classification made it possible to determine the dynamics and reserves to reduce the caesarean section in the perinatal center: to increase vaginal birth after cesarean, vaginal birth at breech presentations, use a partograph to make a decision for the diagnosis of obstructive labor, suggest external cephalic version at breech presentation, develop a guideline on obstetric tactics in pregnant women with cardiac arrhythmias
| № | Muallifning F.I.Sh. | Lavozimi | Tashkilot nomi |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Babajanova S.D. | Республиканский перинатальный центр | |
| 2 | Lubich N.I. | Республиканский перинатальный центр | |
| 3 | Bayramov S.D. | Республиканский перинатальный центр |
| № | Havola nomi |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Alternative strategy to decrease cesarean section: support by doulas during labor/Trueba G. [et al.] // J. Perinatal Education.-2000.- Vol. 9, N 2.- P. 89–13. 2. Application of the Robson classification of cesarean sections in focus: Robson groups/Budhwa T. [et al.] // A report by the child health network for the greater Toronto area.- Toronto, 2010.- 60 р 3. Clark E.A. S., Silver R.M. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery // Am.J. Obstet. Gynecol. - 2011.-Vol. 205, N 6, suppl.- P. S2–10. 4. Kealy M.A., Small R.E., Liamputtong P. Recovery after caesarean birth: a qualitative study of women’s accounts in Victoria, Australia // BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2010 URL: http: // www.biomedcentral.com/1471–2393/10/47/ 5. Мас Dorman M.F., Menacker F., Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes // Clin. Perinatol.- 2008.- Vol. 35, N 2.- Р. 293–307. 6. Potter J., Hopkins K., Faundes A. Women’s autonomy and scheduled cesarean sections in Brazil: a cautionary tale // Birth.- 2008.- Vol. 35.- Р. 33–40. 7. Robson M.S. Classification of caesarean sec-tions // Fetal and Maternal Мedicine Review.- 2001.- Vol. 12, N 1.-Р. 23–29. |