Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2018, Vol. 45 Issue (4): 612-614    DOI: 10.12891/ceog3982.2018
Case Report Previous articles | Next articles
Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis following cesarean delivery: a case report
T.J. Bozorgan1, M. Motevasselian1, *(), S. Esmaeili1, B. AmirNazari1, H. Zendedel1
1 Preventative Gynecology, Research Center, Madieh Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Despite rare prevalence of septic pelvic thrombophlebitis (SPT), high mortality and morbidity in untreated or delayed diagnosed cases are expected. Thus, early diagnosis and therapeutic management of disease is very vital. The present report describes a febrile case with strong suspicion to SPT that successfully responded to anticoagulant therapeutics. The patient was initially diagnosed with severe sepsis due to cesarean section and managed by antibiotic therapy. Because of persisting fever and no response to antibiotics, and with a strong suspicion of SPT, patient was treated with anticoagulant medication. Two days after beginning anticoagulant therapy, the nature of fever significantly changed to low grade and spiking. Four days later, she was completely afebrile. Therefore, SPT may imitate some common postoperative complications and thus should be considered as a serious post-cesarean event.
Key words:  Septic pelvic      Thrombophlebitis      Cesarean delivery     
Published:  10 August 2018     
*Corresponding Author(s):  M. MOTEVASSELIAN     E-mail:  Mahtab_Mven@yahoo.com

Cite this article: 

T.J. Bozorgan, M. Motevasselian, S. Esmaeili, B. AmirNazari, H. Zendedel. Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis following cesarean delivery: a case report. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(4): 612-614.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog3982.2018     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2018/V45/I4/612

[1] Uros Visic, Tatjana Stopar Pintaric, Tit Albreht, Iva Blajic, Miha Lucovnik. Multimodal stepwise analgesia for reducing opioid consumption after cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1162-1166.
[2] Antonio Coviello, Concetta Posillipo, Ludovica Golino, Carlo De Angelis, Elisabetta Gragnano, Gabriele Saccone, Marilena Ianniello, Gaetano Castellano, Annachiara Marra, Alfredo Maresca, Maria Vargas, Giuseppe Servillo. Anesthesiologic management of pregnant women with SARS-COV-2 infection undergoing cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 628-630.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] Hui-Dong Li, Zhi-Kun Zhang, Shuang Guo, Peng-Peng Qu. The application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of cesarean scar pregnancies[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(5): 731-734.
[6] K. Roloff, A. Gray, V.J. Guillermo. Repeat cesarean delivery in the 39-week rule era: outcomes at a community based hospital[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(3): 391-395.
[7] A. Kitamura, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Hattori, K. Watanabe, M. Hino, T. Kurahashi, M. Miwa, I. Kamimaki, H. Nakagawa. Evaluation of vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 591-594.
[8] Y. Yamamoto, S. Aoki, M.S. Oba, K. Seki, F. Hirahara. Short umbilical cord length: reflective of adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(2): 216-219.
[9] T. Atacag, E. Yayci, T. Guler, K. Suer, F. Yayci, S. Deren, A. Cetin. Asymptomatic bacteriuria screened by catheterized samples at pregnancy term in women undergoing cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, 42(5): 590-594.
[10] M.M. Shaaban, W.A. Sayed Ahmed, Z. Khadr, H.F. El-Sayed. Rising cesarean section rates, a patient’s perspective: experience from a high birth rate country[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, 41(4): 436-439.
[11] N. Matsumoto, M. Osada, C. Matsumoto, Y. Gomi, S. Era, H. Udagawa, N. Suzuki, S. Takahashi. Labor induction using modified metreurynters plus oxytocin at an institution in Japan: a retrospective study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, 41(1): 10-16.
[12] I. Arikan, A. Barut, M. Harma, I.M. Harma, S. Gezer, H. Ulubasoglu. Cesarean section with relative indications versus spontaneous vaginal delivery: short-term outcomes of maternofetal health[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2012, 39(3): 288-292.
[13] E. Ozalp, H.M. Tanir, T. Sener. Dinoprostone vaginal insert versus intravenous oxytocin to reduce postpartum blood loss following vaginal or cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2010, 37(1): 53-55.
[14] O. A. Olatunbosun, A. Ravichander, R. W. Turnell, L. Edouard. The influence of patient preferences and physician practices on cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2002, 29(1): 19-21.
[15] N. Makris, A. Xygakis, A. Chionis, G. Sakellaropoulos, S. Michalas. The management of breech presentation in the last three decades[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1999, 26(3-4): 178-180.
No Suggested Reading articles found!