Search in Medwell
 
 
Research Journal of Biological Sciences
Year: 2011 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 12 | Page No.: 645-647
DOI: 10.3923/rjbsci.2011.645.647  
Comparing of Physiologic Delivery and Traditional Vaginal Delivery in Pregnant Women Who Come to Kosar Hospital
Fatemeh Lalooha , Faride Movahed , Talaat Dabaghi Ghaleh , Leila Alijani and Omid Mashrabi
 
Abstract: In traditional vaginal delivery used any intervention such as: IV line, prescription of oxytocin and episiotomy but in physiologic delivery did not do any intervention and exit of placenta was spontaneously and patient position in favorable situation. Comparing laceration and hemoglobin decrease in physiologic delivery and traditional vaginal delivery. Recent study are analytical epidemiologic study, case control that doing in 500 pregnant women who come to Kosar hospital with labor pain that randomly divided in two groups of traditional vaginal and physiologic delivery (250 cases in each group) and progress of delivery controlled then information an questionnaires completed. In recent study, in traditional vaginal delivery, 73.2% cases was used episiotomy. In physiologic group in 66.8% of cases there was not any laceration and 29.6% of cases grade I, 3.6% of cases laceration grade II. In traditional vaginal delivery in 26.8% of case there was not any episiotomy. That there was not laceration in 53.7%, 41.8% laceration grade I and 4.3% laceration grade II. The mean of Hb after 6 h of delivery in physiologic delivery was statically higher than traditional vaginal delivery (p<0.001). The findings show that the risk of laceration and decrease of Hb in physiologic delivery is less than traditional vaginal delivery. So, researchers can use physiologic delivery as routine.
 
How to cite this article:
Fatemeh Lalooha, Faride Movahed, Talaat Dabaghi Ghaleh, Leila Alijani and Omid Mashrabi, 2011. Comparing of Physiologic Delivery and Traditional Vaginal Delivery in Pregnant Women Who Come to Kosar Hospital. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 6: 645-647.
DOI: 10.3923/rjbsci.2011.645.647
URL: http://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=rjbsci.2011.645.647