Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2020, Vol. 47 Issue (1): 117-121    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2020.01.4752
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Multiparty, relation with patology of pregnancy and delivery
L. Andrejevic1, *(), A. Andrejevic1, V. Nestorovic2, B. Milosevic3, S. Andrejevic4, S. Nestorovic5
1Gynecological Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Kosovo
2Institute for Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Kosovo
3Faculty of Agriculture, Pristina - Lesak, Kosovo
4University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Kosovo
5.Faculty of Medicine, Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Kosovo
Download:  PDF(1015KB)  ( 190 ) Full text   ( 9 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

Introduction: Multiparty is a long-standing problem for gynecologists around the world, since in places where multiparity is expressed, researchers are not able to fully examine it, most often because of socio-economic reasons. Objective: The aim of this research was to examine the influence of multiparty (delivery of six or more children ) on pathology of pregnancy and delivery. Materials and Methods: The study included women that were delivered at the Gynecological Clinic of Faculty of Medicine in Pristina during 1992 and 1993, a total of 12, 532. The analysis included impact of multiparity on pathology of pregnancy and delivery. Results: The analysis of the age of patients indicates that the highest number of patients was aged between 18 and 25 years. As an atypical phenomenon, the authors also presented a pelvic presentation, although it cannot be considered a pathological condition, but is listed here because it can give an increased number of birth complications. The percentage of cesarean section in multiparas is growing but not evenly. Multiparity certainly increases its incidence. The abruption of normally inserted placenta is more frequent in multiparas. Placenta previa is also more common in multiparas. Situs transversus indicates an increased number of internal turnings as well as cesarean section. Edema, proteinuria, hypertension (EPH) gestosis at multiparas regularly determines the end of pregnancy with cesarean section. Episiotomy is rare in multiparas. Rh incompatibility is not more frequent at multiparas. Multiparity is also correlated with pathological conditions associated with umbilical cord swelling. Multiparas experience more common bleeding during the third and fourth trimesters. Rupture of amnion is more common in multiparas. Hysterectomy after delivery is significantly dependent on parity. Conclusion: The limit for multiparty was set to delivery of six or more children. Multiparity certainly has an adverse effect on pregnancy. The pathology of pregnancy as well as complications during delivery were increased. Multiparity ultimately poses danger to the pregnant woman.

Key words:  Multiparty      Delivery      Pathology during pregnancy.     
Published:  15 February 2020     
*Corresponding Author(s):  L. Andrejevic     E-mail:  komsalaza@yahoo.com

Cite this article: 

L. Andrejevic, A. Andrejevic, V. Nestorovic, B. Milosevic, S. Andrejevic, S. Nestorovic. Multiparty, relation with patology of pregnancy and delivery. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 117-121.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.01.4752     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2020/V47/I1/117

Figure 1.  — Age structure of maternity.

Figure 2.  — Pelvic presentation according to parity.

Figure 3.  — Pelvic presentation according to parity,

Figure 4.  — Number of cesarean sections according to parity.

Figure 5.  — Abruption of the normally implanted placenta according to parity.

Figure 6.  — Cesarean section at situs transversus at parity at 100%.

Figure 7.  — Cesarean section for placental praevia.

Figure 8.  — Cesarean section at EPH gestosis ccording to parity.

Figure 9.  — Type of delivery with episiotomy.

Figure 10.  — Rh incompatibility and parity.

Figure 11.  — Wrapping umbilical cord and parity.

Figure 12.  — Bleeding during delivery according to parity.

Figure 13.  — Early rupture of amnion and parity.

Figure 14.  — Cause of hysterectomy (absolute frequency).

Figure 15.  — Hysterectomy after delivery according to parity.

[1] Andrejevic A.,Cvetkovic S.,Vitosevic Z.,Andrejevic LRelic G.:“Multiparity, perinatal morbidity and mortality”.Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol..2011,38,71.
[2] Fuchs K.,Peretz A.B.Markovici R.,Paldi E.,Timor Tritssh I.:“The ‘grand multipara’-is it a problelem? A, reviev of 5, 785 cases”.Gynecol. Obstet. Int. J.,1985, 23,321.
[3] Zakirov Z.IKenžaev O.Š.:“Tečenie i ishod beremennosti i rodov u mnogorožavših ženštin.”.Akuš. Ginek. Moskv.,1984,25,31.
[4] Affonso D.D.,Mayerryl J.,Sheptak S.:“Multiparity and stressful events”.J. Perinatol.,1988,8,12.
[5] Kjer J.J.:“Grand multipara”.Zentralbe Gynacol.,1989,111,1503.
[6] Tanbo G.TBungum L.:“The grand multipara-maternal and neonatal complications”.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.,1987,66,53.
[7] Kafkas S.,Taner C.E.:“Ruptured uterus”.Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.,1991,34, 41.
[1] S. Srisukho, K. Srisupundit, T. Tongsong. Fulfillment of the criteria for diagnosis of cephalo-pelvic disproportion: ACOG guidelines[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 500-504.
[2] N. Dropińska, K. Chmaj-Wierzchowska, M. Wojciechowska, M. Wilczak. What is the state of knowledge on preterm birth?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 505-510.
[3] G. Sel, A. Barut, Ü. Özmen, A. Y. Akdemir, S. Harma, B. Aynalı, M. Harma, M.İ. Harma. Mode of delivery does not have a relationship with high-risk HPV positivity[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 541-545.
[4] L. Mamas, E. Mamas. Prophylactic cervical cerclage, fully embedded, for twin pregnancies following fertility treatment[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 238-242.
[5] C. Chollet, B. Andre, M. Voglimacci, A. Ghassani, O. Parant, P. Guerby. Perinatal outcomes of second trimester antenatal genital bleeding[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 105-110.
[6] K.-C. Moon, J.-M. Lee, E.-S. Yoon, B.-I. Lee, S.-H. Park. Can pregnancy following muscle-sparing transverse abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps be safe on abdominal wall?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 37-40.
[7] R. Csorba, P. Tsikouras, A. Bothou, S. Zervoudis, G. Iatrakis, X. Anthoulaki, D. Deuteraiou, A. Chalkidou, G. F. von Tempelhoff. Air travel during pregnancy: an update review and practical recommendation[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 862-866.
[8] M. Aslam, Areej Ghormulla Alghamdi, Nawal G. Alghamdi, Khushnoor Khan. Monitoring and assessing pre-labor obstetric practicesc using control charts: cesarean delivery cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 570-574.
[9] I. Pimentel-Soares, A. C. Sartorato Beleza, M. da Silva Corrêa, M. Vieira Batistão, P. Driusso. Long-term effect of first childbirth on pelvic floor muscle function: cross-sectional study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 630-634.
[10] L. Wang, N. Zhao, J. Zhou, M. Xu. Factors for predicting cesarean section during epidural analgesia: a retrospective study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(3): 443-446.
[11] N. Yachida, M. Itsukaichi, K. Haino, T. Usuda, J. Yoshimura, T. Enomoto, M. Yamaguchi, K. Takakuwa. Influence of route of delivery on perinatal outcomes in fetuses with myelomeningocele[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(2): 277-279.
[12] J.H. Check, D.L. Check, R. Chern. Successful live delivery despite an inappropriate rise in the serial human chorionic gonadotropin level[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(2): 297-298.
[13] Mostafa Maleki, Mohsen Shams, Ali Mousavizadeh, Saadat Parhizkar, Parvin Angha. Development of a tailored intervention to promote normal vaginal delivery among primigravida women: a formative study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(6): 886-892.
[14] I. Babović, M. Matić, S. Plešinac. Woman with Marfan syndrome in pregnancy: good maternal and fetal outcome – a case report and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(6): 920-923.
[15] M. Paccosi. A technique variant for the use of the vacuum extractor with episiotomy to reduce maternal injuries[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(5): 713-719.
No Suggested Reading articles found!