1887
Volume 2005, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • E-ISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

Objective: To study the obstetric performance and neonatal outcome of patients of extreme multiparity, Para 10 and more, compared to control group of Para 2 to 4.

Study Design: It is a retrospective comparative study. Data were collected from Medical Records ofpatients during the period from January-December 2000. The total number of deliveries during that period was 10,999. 240 patients records were reviewed, 120 records in each group.

Result: The incidence of great-grand multiparity was 1.09%. The incidence of lack of perinatal care among great grand multipara was statistically significant. However; there are no differences in the perinatal morbidity and mortality; also there was no difference in the rate of instrumental delivery and mal-presentation in the two groups. The duration of pregnancy is similar in the two groups. There was no difference in incidence of antepartum hemorrhage, rate of caesarean section rate. However; the only statically significant difference in the two groups was the increased incidence of large babies (macrosomia).

Conclusion: This study showed that extreme grand multiparity carry the added risk of macrosomia (> 4000mg), this was not reflected on any adverse perinatal outcome. However, the number of patients in this study is limited and it is difficult to draw firm conclusion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2005.1.12
2005-06-01
2019-12-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Toohey Keegan KA,, Morgan MA, Francis J, Tasks S, de Veciana M. The “dangerous multipara”: Fact or fiction? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 172::683686.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Fayed HM, Abid SF, Stevens B. Risk factors in extreme grand multiparity. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993; 41::1722.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brunskill AJ, Rossing MA, Connell FA, Doling J. Anetecedents of Macrosomia. Pediatric perinatal epidemiology. 1991; 5::395.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kjer JJ. Grandmultipara. Zentralbl Gynekol. 1989; III::1503.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kirs DS, Dorchester W, Freeman RK. Advanced maternal age: The mature gravida. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 152::712.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kiely JL, Paneth N, Susser M. An Assessment of the effects of maternal age and parity indifferent component of perinatal mortality. Am J epidimiol. 1986; 123::444454.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Tanbo TG, Bungum L. The grandmultipara. Maternal and Neonatal Complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987; 66::5356.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Seidman DS, Armon Y, Roll D, Stevenson DK, Gale R. Grandmultiparity: An obstetric or neonatal risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 158::10341039.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eidelman Al, Kamar R, Schimmel MS, Baron E. The grandmultipara: Is she still a risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 158::389392.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Scharfman E, Silvestein LM. The grandmultipar. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1962; 84::14421446.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Samuel O, Mor A, Yosef S, Seidman DS, Rabinowitz R, Simon A, Schenkev JG. Grandmultiparity: A nationwide survey. Int Sr J Med Sci. 1989; 25::625629.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lacy WN, Miller S, Wine gar A, Peterson PQ. Macrosomia: Maternal characteristics and infant complications. Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 66::158.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Es RW. Pater son CM. Saunders NJ. Risk factors for major obstetric hemorrhage. Eur I Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1993; 48::15.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. r^mb KR, Gregory K, Shaw K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County+ University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 85::558.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heija AT, Ghalabi HEL. Great grandmultiparity; Is it a risk? Int I gynecol Obstet. 1997; 59::213216.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fayed HM, Abid SF, Steven SB. Risk factors in extreme grandmultiparity. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993; 41::1722.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eidelman Al, Kamar R, Schimmel MS, Baron E. The grandmultipara: Is she still a risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 158::389392.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2005.1.12
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error