Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0263837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263837

Determinants of early neonatal outcomes after emergency cesarean delivery at Hawassa University comprehensive specialised hospital, Hawassa, Ethiopia

Solomon Elias 1,#, Zenebe Wolde 2,#, Temesgen Tantu 3,‡,*, Muluken Gunta 4,‡, Dereje Zewudu 5,‡
Editor: Francesca Crovetto6
PMCID: PMC8947390  PMID: 35324921

Abstract

Background

Neonatal mortality after cesarean delivery is three folds higher than mortality after vaginal births. Post cesarean early neonatal outcomes are associated with preoperative and intraoperative fetomaternal factors which are preventable in the majority of cases.

Objective

To identify determinants of early neonatal outcomes after emergency cesarean delivery at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Hawassa, Southern Ethiopia.

Method

Institution based cross sectional study was conducted on 270 emergency cesarean deliveries. Data were collected by using a pretested questionnaire by trained data collectors. Descriptive analysis was used to see the nature of the characteristics of interests. Pearson chi-square-test was used to check presence of association between independent and outcome variables. Bivariate analysis was used to sort out variables at p values less than 0.05 for multivariate logistic regression. Significance level was obtained using odds ratio with 95% CI and p value < 0.05.

Results

The prevalence of adverse early neonatal outcome after emergency cesarean delivery was 26.7%. Around 11% of newborns had low (<7) fifth minute Apgar score and more than one-third (34.8%) of them admitted to neonatal intensive care unit for more than 24 hours. Fifteen (5.6%) newborns died within their first seven days of life. Neonates with a preoperative meconium-stained amniotic fluid and low birth weight (< 2500 grams) had greater odds of having adverse early neonatal outcome with (AOR = 6.37; 95% CI: 2.64, 15.34) and (AOR = 14.00; 95% CI: 3.64, 53.84) respectively.

Conclusion

The prevalence of adverse early neonatal outcome is high in this study and meconium-stained amniotic fluid during labor as well as low birth weight were the leading predictors of adverse early neonatal outcome during emergency cesarean delivery.

1 Introduction

Cesarean delivery is defined as the birth of a fetus via a surgically created incision in the anterior uterine wall [1]. Classification of cesarean section is based on the degree of urgency, women-based and others. Traditionally it is classified as, Elective cesarean delivery, if the decision to perform the operation was made ahead of time and /or before onset of labor and all others are considered as emergency cesarean delivery [2,3]. World health organization (WHO) sets a cesarean delivery rate of 5–15% that is assumed to be a range which can decrease neonatal morbidity and mortality [4,5]. Cesarean section may not be a measure of perinatal outcome, rather it is considered as a measure of a specific health care process (mode of delivery) [1].

The neonatal period is a highly vulnerable time for an infant completing many of the physiologic adjustments required for survival in the extra uterine environment. More specifically, the first seven days are the most critical period for the survival of newborns [6,7]. Different studies showed these poor neonatal outcomes were more common in emergency than elective cesarean delivery and are affected by various maternal and fetal factors [8–10].

Globally, around 2.6 million newborns died in 2016, which means 7,000 neonatal deaths every day [11]. Sub-Saharan Africa countries accounted 38% of all newborn deaths and Ethiopia is among the five countries which contribute 50% of global neonatal deaths [11].

Intrapartum related events accounts 24% of neonatal deaths and it is possible to prevent 80% of these deaths by having accessible and quality health services, of which, access to cesarean delivery is one component [11–15]. In sub-Saharan Africa, 8.8% of all deliveries are through cesarean section [16,17] and neonatal mortality after cesarean delivery in sub-Saharan Africa is higher than the global average [18]. Different types of factors such as parity, distance between institutions before interventions, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, type of anesthesia, birth weight, indications of cesarean sections are associated with poor neonatal out come after cesarean section across the literature [16,19–26].

There are limited studies done on factors which determine neonatal outcome after emergency cesarean section. These factors, which will be identified, might be modifiable and therefore, the finding of this study may be used as an input by health care providers and government bodies on measures needed to improve quality of care during pregnancy, labor and delivery.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 study area, design, and populations

Institution based cross sectional study was conducted at Hawassa university comprehensive hospital in Hawassa city 320 kilo meters south east to capital of Ethiopia from 01, August 2018 to 30, October 2018. All neonates who were delivered by emergency cesarian delivery at Hawassa University comprehensive specialized hospital during the study period and who were eligible were included.

2.2 Sample size determination and sampling technique

Single population proportion formula was used to determine sample size required to conduct this study from previous studies with the prevalence of adverse early neonatal outcome after emergency cesarean reported as 20% at 95% certainty and 5% margin of error. Using this 20% proportion of adverse early neonatal outcomes, the calculated sample size for the first objective was 245 [27]. By a convenience sampling method, all neonates delivered by emergency cesarean deliveries in the study period were taken until the estimated sample size was achieved.

2.3 Inclusion & exclusion criteria

2.3.1 Inclusion criteria

Neonates who were delivered by emergency cesarean delivery and still births at cesarean delivery, who had a positive fetal heart beat pre operatively were included in the study.

2.3.2 Exclusion criteria

Neonates, who were delivered by emergency cesarean delivery with one the followings like who had a gross lethal congenital anomaly that was diagnosed pre operatively or post operatively, multiple pregnancy, intrauterine fetal death diagnosed on admission, and whose mothers declined or were unable to give medical history due to any medical disease or obstetric complication.

2.4 Data collection instruments

The mother was informed about the purpose and usefulness of the study then verbal consent was taken if she is willing to participate before commencement of data collection. Two trained midwives who had previous experience on data collection collected the data. They were supervised by a trained supervisor in order not to have difficulties during collection. Extensive data was collected on each woman who was included in the study and her new born through interview and by abstraction of relevant data from medical records. Neonates, who were admitted to NICU, who were discharged from maternity ward and who stayed in the maternity ward for maternal indication, were followed for the first 7 days for possible development of the other outcome variables through the course. Discharged Neonates, who were healthy, were followed by data collectors assigned to specific neonates (midwives) until the seventh day of life with a phone interview with the mother about the neonate like whether the neonate was breastfeeding, sleeping well, alert and if there was any problem, the mother had been informed to bring it back. A well-structured checklist written in English enquiring maternal and neonatal condition were prepared. The data included maternal socio-demographic variables, previous obstetric history, antenatal care, obstetric and medical complication, indication of cesarean delivery and intraoperative events like type of anesthesia and incision to delivery time. Data regarding neonatal status included sex, weight, first and fifth minutes Apgar, need for NICU admission for more than 24 hours and presence of death (still birth or early neonatal death).

2.5 data processing and analysis

The collected data was checked, and entered to Epi Info version 7 then exported to SPSS version 20 for further data cleaning and analysis. Frequency distributions were obtained to check for data entry error. Descriptive statistics, tables, graphs, means and frequency distribution were used to present the information. The presence of association between independent and outcome variables was checked by Pearson chi-square-test. Additionally, each independent variable was fitted separately into bivariate logistic analysis to evaluate for degree of association with outcome variable. Thus, further degree of association was assessed by multivariate logistic regression on variables with p values less than 0.05. Significance level was obtained at odds ratio with 95% CI and p value < 0.05.

2.6 Ethical approval

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the college of medicine and health sciences, Hawassa University, Ethiopia with ethical clearance letter no. RPGe/88/2018. The IRB has given ethical clearance for both oral and written informed consent.

Operation definitions

Early neonatal outcome: Condition of a neonate in the first seven days after emergency cesarean delivery, which can be favorable or adverse.

Adverse early neonatal outcomes Stillbirthirth at delivery, fifth minute Apgar score < 7, admission to NICU for more than 24 hours and death within seven days are considered adverse early neonatal outcomes.

Good/favorable early neonatal outcomes: APGAR sore of >7 at the fifth minute, absence of admission to NICU or admission to NICU for < 24 hours are considered as good/favorable early neonatal outcomes.

Previous one cesarean scar with x factor: Cesarean scar with any other factors like malpresentation, prolonged latent phase, protracted or arrest of cervical dilatation and etc.

3. Results

3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics

All 270 mothers responded to the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 100%. The mean age of participants was 26.4 (SD±4.8) years and ranged from 18 to 43 years. The vast majorities (98.1%) of respondents were married. Nearly half (47.4%) of the mothers were housewives, 20% of mothers never attended school and only 38 (17.6%) study subjects had degrees and above education level (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of mothers in Hawassa University comprehensive specialized hospital, Southern Ethiopia, October 2018.

Variables (n = 270) Frequency Percentage
Maternal age
20 33 12.2
21–34 217 80.4
    ≥35 20 7.4
Religion
Orthodox 91 33.7
    Muslim 105 38.9
Protestant 73 27.0
Others 1 0.4
    ➢ Marital status
        Married 265 98.1
Unmarried 4 1.5
Divorced 1 0.4
Ethnicity
Sidama 81 30.0
Oromo 129 47.8
Wolayta 4 1.5
Halaba 5 1.9
Amhara 23 8.5
Gurage 9 3.3
Others 19 7.0
Residence
    Rural 87 32.2
Urban 183 67.8
Ever attended school
Yes 216 80.0
No 54 20.0
Level of education (n = 216)
    Elementary level 84 38.9
High school level 69 31.9
    Diploma level 25 11.6
    Degree level and above 38 17.6
Occupation
    Farmer 45 16.7
    Merchant 36 13.3
  Gov’t employee 56 20.7
    House wife 128 47.4
    Others 5 1.9
Monthly family income (Birr)
    < = 1000 76 28.1
    1001–5000 141 52.2
    >5000 53 19.6
Open in a new tab

3.2 Obstetric characteristics of participants

The mean gravidity and parity of participants was 2.4 (SD±1.5) and 1.3 (SD±1.49) respectively. Majority (84.1%) of the pregnancies were term at the time of admission. About 9%, 2.2% and 1.1% study subjects had history of abortion, stillbirth and early neonatal death respectively. (Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetric profile of respondents in Hawassa University comprehensive specialized hospital, Southern Ethiopia, October 2018.

Variables (n = 270) Frequency Percentage
Gravidity
1–4 237 87.8
≥5 33 12.2
Parity
≤3 241 89.3
>3 29 10.7
Gestational age
Preterm (< 37 weeks) 21 7.8
    Term (37–42weeks) 227 84.1
    Post term (> 42 weeks) 22 8.1
Previous history of abortion
Yes 24 8.9
No 246 91.1
Previous history of stillbirth
Yes 6 2.2
No 264 97.8
Previous history of early neonatal death
Yes 3 1.1
No 267 98.9
ANC in current pregnancy
Yes 266 98.5
No 4 1.5
Place of ANC visit (n = 266)
 Health center or private clinic 211 79.3
    Primary hospital 46 17.3
    Referral Hospital 9 3.4
Previous uterine scar
Yes 71 26.3
No 199 73.7
Number of uterine scar (n = 71)
One 51 71.8
Two 18 25.4
    Three and above 2 2.8
Preoperative obstetric complications
Yes 83 30.7
No 187 69.3
Preoperative medical complications
Yes 9 3.3
No 261 96.7
Type of medical complications (n = 9)
    Diabetes mellitus 2 22.2
 Chronic hypertension 1 11.1
    Cardiac disease 1 11.1
    HIV infection 3 33.3
    Others 2 22.2
Open in a new tab

Preoperatively, pre-eclampsia (39.8%), premature rupture of membranes (16.9%) and abruption placenta (12%) were the most commonly diagnosed obstetric complications among the study subjects (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Freqency of preoperative obstetric complications among mothers who had emergency cesarean delivery in HUCSH, 2018.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

3.3 Preoperative characteristics of participants

Of the total respondents, more than half (55.9%) of them were referred from other institutions; majority (60.3%) from government hospitals. For those referred from other institutions, the mean time taken for transport was 2.12 (SD±1.723) hours. More than three-fourth (78.5%) participants had labor before operation, of whom, 194 (91.5%) presented with spontaneous onset of labor with a mean duration of labor being 11.2(SD±7.78) hours (Table 3).

Table 3. Admission and preoperative characteristics of respondents in Hawassa University comprehensive specialized hospital, Southern Ethiopia, 2018.

Variables Frequency Percentage
Admission type (n = 270)
Not referred 119 44.1
    Referred 151 55.9
Referring institution (n = 151)
  Health center 29 19.2
  Government hospital 91 60.3
  Private clinic or Hospital 31 20.5
Travel time from referring institution
    ≤1 hours 195 72.2
    2–3 hours 56 20.7
  ≥4 hours 19 7.0
Labor before operation
Yes 212 78.5
No 58 21.5
Onset of labor (n = 212)
Spontaneous 194 91.5
    Induced 18 8.5
Duration of labor before operation (n = 212)
< = 6 hours 131 48.5
7–18 hours 102 37.8
>18 hours 37 13.7
Stage of labor at decision for CS (n = 212)
Latent first stage 119 56.1
Active first stage 69 32.5
    Second stage 24 11.3
Liquor status at decision to operate (n = 212)
    Clear 118 55.7
    Grade one meconium-stained amniotic fluid 12 5.7
Grade two meconium-stained amniotic fluid 19 9.0
    Grade three meconium-stained amniotic fluid 35 16.5
    Unknown 28 13.2
Fetal presentation (n = 212)
    Vertex 183 86.3
    Brow 2 0.9
    Face 6 2.8
    Breech 17 8.0
    Shoulder 4 1.9
Fetal heart beat at decision for operation (n = 270)
    < 120 42 15.6
120–160 188 69.6
    > 160 40 14.8
Open in a new tab

The most common indications for cesarean delivery in the participants were one uterine scar with x-factor (14.8%), fetal bradycardia (13.7%), fetal tachycardia (13%), and Malpresentation (10.4%). (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Indications for cesarean delivery in women with emergency C/S in HUCSH, 2018.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

3.4 Early neonatal outcomes

About 56% of the mothers were operated during duty hours. Sixty percent of surgeries were done after 30 minutes of decision and majority (93%) of the surgeries were done under spinal anesthesia. Skin incision for most (94.1%) participants was supra pubic transverse type and year two and three residents operated on majority of the mothers (51.5% and 41.9% respectively). (See Table 4)

Table 4. Intraoperative characteristics and neonatal outcomes of participants in Hawassa University comprehensive specialized hospital, Southern Ethiopia, 2018.

Variables Frequency Percentage
Time of operation (n = 270)
Working hours 119 44.1
    Duty hours 151 55.9
Decision to delivery time (n = 270)
≤30 min 108 40.0
>30 min 162 60.0
Skin incision to delivery time (n = 270)
≤5 min 144 53.3
>5 min 126 46.7
Type of anesthesia (n = 270)
Spinal anesthesia 251 93.0
General anesthesia 19 7.0
Maternal blood pressure at decision for operation (n = 270)
    < 100/60 2 0.7
100–139/60–89 205 75.9
140/90 and above 63 23.3
Maternal blood pressure after anesthesia (n = 270)
    < 100/60 9 3.3
100–139/60–89 226 83.7
140/90 and above 35 13.0
Type of skin incision (n = 270)
Suprapubic transverse 254 94.1
    Midline 16 5.9
Surgeon (n = 270)
Year one resident 7 2.6
Year two resident 139 51.5
Year three resident 113 41.9
Year four resident 10 3.7
    Obstetrician 1 .4
Sex of neonate
Male 148 54.8
Female 122 45.2
Newborn weight
 normal birth weight 202 74.8
    low birth weight 43(< 5th centile) 15.9
large birth weight 25 9.3
First minute Apgar score (n = 270)
    < 7 45 16.7
    7 and above 225 83.3
Neonate referred to NICU (n = 270)
Yes 92 34.1
No 178 65.9
Neonatal diagnosis at NICU (n = 92)
    Preterm neonate 29 31.5
    low birth weight 11 12.0
    Meconium aspiration 23 25.0
    Perinatal asphyxia 14 15.2
    Respiratory distress syndrome 15 16.3
Unfavorable early neonatal outcome
Yes 72 26.7
No 198 73.3
Fifth minute Apgar score (n = 270)
    < 7 29 10.7
7 and above 241 89.3
Duration of admission at NICU (n = 92)
< 24 Hours 32 34.8
    >24 hours 60 65.2
Neonatal condition on 7th postop day (n = 270)
    Discharged improved 203 75.2
    Alive and on treatment 52 19.3
    Died 15 5.6
Cause of newborn death (n = 15)
  Perinatal asphyxia 8 53.3
  Respiratory distress syndrome 6 40.0
  Meconium aspiration syndrome 1 6.7
Time of neonatal death (n = 15)
  First post operation day 10 66.7
Second post operation day 3 20.0
  Third post operation day 2 13.3
Open in a new tab

The prevalence of adverse early neonatal outcomes was 26.7% (95% CI: 21.3%-31.9%). Nearly 11% of the newborns had fifth minute APGAR score less than 7 and more than one-third (34.8%) were admitted to the NICU for more than 24 hours. Fifteen (5.6%) newborns died within their first seven days of life, of these, two-third of them died in the first postoperative day. The most common cause for early neonatal death was perinatal asphyxia (53.3%) followed by respiratory distress syndrome (40%).

3.5 Factors associated with early neonatal outcomes

In the binary logistic regression analysis, the following variables were statistically significant like: gestational age, previous cesarean scar, preoperative obstetric complications, admission type, place of referral, preoperative labor, stage of labor before operation, fetal heartbeat, type of anesthesia, income, parity, number of uterine scars, time spent from referring institution, liquor status and birth weight.

In the multi-variable logistic regression analysis, only liquor status and birth weight remained as statistically significant predictors of early neonatal outcomes. Mothers with meconium-stained amniotic fluid during vaginal examination were about 6-times (AOR: 6.34; 95% CI 2.64, 15.34) more likely to have adverse early neonatal outcomes than their counter-parts with clear amniotic fluid. Similarly, low birth weight increased the odds of adverse early neonatal outcomes by 14-fold (AOR: 14.00; CI 3.64, 53.84) (see Table 5).

Table 5. Binary and multivariable logistic regression analyses of factors affecting early neonatal outcomes in HUCSH, Southern Ethiopia, Oct 2018.

Variables Early neonatal outcome n (%) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes No
Preoperative obstetric complications
Yes 37 (51.4%) 46 (23.2%) 3.49 (1.98, 6.16) 2.60 (0.92, 7.38)
No 35 (48.6%) 152(76.8%) 1 1
Admission type
    Not referred 22 (30.6%) 97 (49.0%) 1 1
    Referred 50 (69.4%) 101 (51.0%) 2.18 (1.23, 3.87) 0.96 (0.42, 2.20)
FHB at decision for operation
    120–160 beats/min 43 (59.7%) 145 (73.2%) 1 1
<120 beats/min 19 (26.4%) 23 (11.6%) 2.78 (1.38, 5.59) 2.29 (0.82, 6.39)
>160 beats/min 10 (13.9%) 30 (15.2%) 1.12 (0.50, 2.48) 1.52 (0.56, 4.16)
Type of anesthesia
    Spinal 62 (86.1%) 189 (95.5%) 1 1
    General 10 (13.9%) 9 (95.5%) 3.38 (1.31, 8.71) 1.69 (0.40, 7.01)
Number of uterine scar
    One 7 (9.7%) 64 (32.3%) 1 1
    Two or more 65 (90.3%) 134 (67.7%) 4.43 (1.92, 10.21) 2.90 (0.79, 10.66)
Liquor status
    Clear 21 (42.0%) 125 (77.2%) 1 1
    Meconium stained 29 (58.0%) 37 (22.8%) 4.66 (2.38, 9.12) 6.37 (2.64, 15.34) *
Birth weight
    Normal 37 (51.4%) 165 (83.3%) 1 1
    Low 32 (44.4%) 11 (5.6%) 12.97 (5.99, 28.08) 14.00 (3.64, 53.84) *
    large 3 (4.2%) 22 (11.1%) 0.60 (0.17, 2.13) 0.57 (0.11, 2.94)
Open in a new tab

AOR adjusted odds ratio; CI confidence interval; COR crude odds ration

*statistically significant variables at p-value <0.05; Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit 0.59.

4. Discussion

This study included 270 singleton neonates born via emergency cesarean delivery, of which 26.7% had adverse early neonatal outcomes (low fifth minute Apgar score, early neonatal death or admission to NICU for more than 24 hours). This finding was higher than Rwandan and Nigerian study, which was 9% and 13.5% [19,28]. This variation could be due to a difference in the level of Hospital where studies were conducted. Rwandan study was done in a district Hospital, while this study was conducted in a tertiary Hospital, where more complicated pregnancies are referred to and handled. This is evidenced by higher proportions of referred pregnant mothers, obstetric complications and severe forms of cesarean indications (tachycardia, bradycardia, cord prolapse and obstructed labor). Additionally, among referred mothers, proportion of patients with ambulance travel time greater than one hour was larger in this study. Additionally, majority of patients were in labor preoperatively and both duration of labor as well as ambulance travel time, which were associated with early neonatal outcomes, were larger in this study than the previous. This is also supported by a large difference in the proportion of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, a manifestation of utero-placental insufficiency, for which prolonged labor is among the known risk factors.

In the present study low fifth minute APGAR score (<7) was seen in 10.7% of deliveries which is in line with two African studies done in Nigeria (13.3%) and Rwanda (9%) [19,28].

About 34.8% of neonates were admitted to NICU for more than twenty-four hours and this is comparable with a magnitude reported in two Indian studies which were 32% and 26% [8,10]. In this study admission to NICU is higher than study done in Saint Paul’s millennium medical college in Addis Ababa which can be explained by that Addis Ababa is Ethiopia’s capital so referrals were from better setup and short distance [29]. The prevalence of admission to NICU in this study was higher than Australian study, which was 14.9% [9]. This might be the fact that the Australian study was conducted in women with a better prepartum and Intrapartum care.

Regarding magnitude of early neonatal death (5%), this finding was comparable with a report from a study conducted at Attat Hospital, Ethiopia (3.6%) [30].

The current study showed that adverse early neonatal outcome was significantly associated with a preoperative meconium-stained amniotic fluid as compared with neonates delivered with a clear preoperative amniotic fluid. This finding is consistent with a prospective observational study conducted in India [20]. This could be explained by the increased risk of meconium aspiration syndrome and perinatal asphyxia in a meconium-stained amniotic fluid. In this study they contributed for 40.2% of NICU admission and 60% of early neonatal deaths respectively.

In this study, birth weight was associated with adverse early neonatal outcome. Neonates with low birth weight were 14 times more likely to have adverse early neonatal outcome when compared to those with normal birth weight. This is in line with a study conducted in Gondar university referral Hospital, where neonates with low birth weight had more adverse early neonatal outcome [26]. This could be explained by multiple factors. According to WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in seven African countries, tertiary or referral facilities having a significant amount of complicated pregnancies which necessitates premature termination of pregnancies, like preeclampsia, antepartum hemorrhage, preterm premature rupture of membranes, and preterm labor, will have a large amount of low birth weight delivery. As result, there will be increased neonatal complication rate as well as premature neonatal deliveries in those facilities [16]. Accordingly, this study was conducted in a tertiary hospital where more complicated pregnancies are managed and this might end up with large number of low-birth-weight neonate.

Conclusion

The magnitude of adverse early neonatal outcome is high in this study. Low birth weight and meconium-stained amniotic fluid were significant independent determinants of adverse early neonatal outcome.

Limitation of the study

Since it was a cross sectional study may not show time association between factors and the outcome variables.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. 1 s1 questionnaire for determinannts of early neonatal outcomes after emergency cesarean delivery at Hawassa University comprhenssive specialised hospital, Hawassa, Ethiopia.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (17.2KB, docx)
S1 Data

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file. (30.8KB, sav)

Acknowledgments

Consent

After getting ethical clearance from the institutional review board of Hawassa University and clarifying the parents of study participants about the aim of the study, informed consent was taken from a parent of the study participants after informing them the aim of the study. They have been told as they can withdraw from the study at any step if they feel so as well as confidentiality was granted.

Abbreviations

NICU

neonatal intensive care neonate

WHO

world health organization

PNA

perinatal asphyxia

MSAF

meconium-stained amniotic fluid

C/S

cesarean section

LSFOL

latent phase first stage of labor

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Hawassa University funded the data collection and data entry during the study process. Otherwise, it had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ER, et al. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies e-book: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smith GC, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Predicting cesarean section and uterine rupture among women attempting vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. PLoS medicine. 2005;2(9):e252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PloS one. 2011;6(1):e14566. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO U, UNICEF. AMDD (2009) Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva: WHO. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. Jama. 2015;314(21):2263–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Foumane P, Mando E, Mboudou ET, Sama JD, Pisoh WD, Minkande JZ. Outcome of cesarean delivery in women with excessive weight gain during pregnancy. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;2014. doi: 10.1684/mst.2014.0290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yeekian C, Jesadapornchai S, Urairong K, Santibenjakul S, Suksong W, Nuchprayoon C. Comparison of maternal factors and neonatal outcomes between elective cesarean section and spontaneous vaginal delivery. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2013;96(4):389–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shenoy H, Shenoy S, Remash K. Determinants of primary vs previous caesarean delivery in a tertiary care institution in Kerala, India. International Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2019;3(5):229–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Soren R, Maitra N, Patel PK, Sheth T. Elective versus emergency caesarean section: maternal complications and neonatal outcomes. IOSR J Nurs Health Sci. 2016;5(5):2320. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Choudhary B, Choudhary Y, Pakhare AP, Mahto D, Chaturvedula L. Early neonatal outcome in caesarean section: A developing country perspective. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;27(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hug L, Alexander M, You D, Alkema L, for Child UI-aG. National, regional, and global levels and trends in neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2019;7(6):e710–e20. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30163-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wardlaw T, You D, Hug L, Amouzou A, Newby H. UNICEF Report: enormous progress in child survival but greater focus on newborns urgently needed. Reproductive health. 2014;11(1):1–4. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-11-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. The Lancet. 2016;387(10018):587–603. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00837-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Organization WH. World health statistics 2016: monitoring health for the SDGs sustainable development goals: World Health Organization; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.You D, Hug L, Ejdemyr S, Idele P, Hogan D, Mathers C, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in under-5 mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. The Lancet. 2015;386(10010):2275–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shah A, Fawole B, M’imunya JM, Amokrane F, Nafiou I, Wolomby J-J, et al. Cesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Africa. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2009;107(3):191–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cavallaro FL, Cresswell JA, França GV, Victora CG, Barros AJ, Ronsmans C. Trends in caesarean delivery by country and wealth quintile: cross-sectional surveys in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2013;91:914–22D. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.117598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Harrison MS, Goldenberg RL. Cesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa. Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology. 2016;2(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nyirahabimana N, Ufashingabire CM, Lin Y, Hedt-Gauthier B, Riviello R, Odhiambo J, et al. Maternal predictors of neonatal outcomes after emergency cesarean section: a retrospective study in three rural district hospitals in Rwanda. Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology. 2017;3(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s40748-017-0050-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mundhra R, Agarwal M. Fetal outcome in meconium stained deliveries. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2013;7(12):2874. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6509.3781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wylie BJ, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Spong CY, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, et al. Comparison of transverse and vertical skin incision for emergency cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2010;115(6):1134. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df937f [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mekonen S, Eshete A, Desta K, Molla Y. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in mothers who undergo caesarean section under general and spinal anesthesia in gandhi memorial hospital, addis ababa. Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine. 2015;2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rotich S, Ndavu M, Rukaria-Kaumbutho R, Kigondu C. Early perinatal outcome in cases delivered through Caesarian section following clinical diagnosis of severe foetal distress at Kenyatta National Hospital. East African medical journal. 2006;83(5):250–8. doi: 10.4314/eamj.v83i5.9430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Algert CS, Bowen JR, Giles WB, Knoblanche GE, Lain SJ, Roberts CL. Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study. BMC medicine. 2009;7(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tashfeen K, Patel M, Hamdi IM, Al-Busaidi IH, Al-Yarubi MN. Decision-to-delivery time intervals in emergency caesarean section cases: repeated cross-sectional study from Oman. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2017;17(1):e38. doi: 10.18295/squmj.2016.17.01.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abdissa Z, Awoke T, Belayneh T, Tefera Y. Birth outcome after caesarean section among mothers who delivered by caesarean section under general and spinal anesthesia at Gondar University teaching hospital north-west Ethiopia. J Anesth Clin Res. 2013;4(7):4–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fesseha N, Getachew A, Hiluf M, Gebrehiwot Y, Bailey P. A national review of cesarean delivery in Ethiopia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2011;115(1):106–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Maanongun M, Ornguze A, Ojabo A, Eka P. Indications and the materno-fetal outcome of caesarean section in a secondary health facility in Obudu, southsouth Nigeria. Res Rep Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;1:3–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ayano B, Guto A. Indications and outcomes of emergency caesarean section at St Paul’s hospital medical college, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2017:(afoul month retrospective cohort study). Gynecol Reprod Health. 2018;2(5):1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Moges A, Ademe B, Akessa G. Prevalence and outcome of caesarean section in Attat Hospital, Gurage Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. Arch Med. 2015;7(4):8. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesca Crovetto

4 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-28401DETERMINANNTS OF EARLY NEONATAL OUTCOMES AFTER EMERGENCY CESSARIAN DELIVERY AT HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COMPRHENSSIVE SPECIALISED HOSPITAL, HAWASSA, ETHIOPIAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Temesgen Tantu

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 17/1/2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesca Crovetto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf”

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“The study data collection was funded by College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hawassa University, Ethiopia. The funding body has no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Comments to the Author

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Very informative study

1.It it possible to find out how many babies were FGR, <3rd centile and 3rd to 10th centile (Intergrowth 21) in place of just mentioning low birth weight <2500 grams.?

Just to know, like how many babies could have been delivered earlier to prevent intrapartum complications . how many babies were diagnosed and electively induced?

2. What do you mean by ANC care? How may visit?? were all participants booked adequately?

3. Were there any neonates with congenital malformation?? adding to the neonatal morbidity

Reviewer #2: GENERAL: There are several grammatical and spelling errors as well as wrong use of tenses that need to be corrected. The referencing of statements is not entirely sequential. In the introduction, the authors jumped from number 16 to 18 and then in the discussion number 26 to 28.There is no number 27.

TITILE: The spelling of caesarean should be corrected.

ABSTRACT: NICU should be written in full. In the conclusion, the 1st sentence is not clear as to what the authors are comparing their prevalence of adverse early neonatal outcome with. Did they mean -the prevalence of adverse neonatal outcome was high--?

INTRODUCTION: lines 2-3 1st paragraph is not clear. Paragraph 3, 1st sentence should be referenced.

METHODS: KM should be written in full 1st before abbreviating. Under exclusion criteria, what do the authors mean by negative foetal heart beat? Under data collection, the 1st sentence should be recasted. The authors should explain clearly how the collected information from the mothers, the type instrument used and when and how this was done. Prior to obtaining information form the women, they should have been educated and informed about the study. When and where was this done? In line 8, what do the authors mean by contact to maternal? The authors should explain how follow up of the mothers was done by phone, who made the phone call to all the mothers? There should be a statement on ethical considerations in the methods section.

RESULTS: What was the total number of mothers enrolled into the study? Under obstetric complications, premature rupture of membrane should be premature rupture of membranes. Several spelling errors that need to be corrected. MSAF and LFSOL should be written in full 1st. In table 4, how did the authors determine the causes of neonatal death, were autopsies conducted on all the babies that died?

DISCUSSION: In the last paragraph before the discussion, lines 6-11 are not clear and should be recasted.

CONSENT: This section is not clear and should be re-written for clarity. Who specifically did the authors obtain consent form and what type of consent was obtained? When were the mothers educated and informed about the study prior to their accepting to participate in the study and obtaining consent? Ethical considerations may be used as a subheading instead.

REFERENCES: Numbers 1, 10 and 30 do not appear complete

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0263837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263837.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

19 Jan 2022

Response for the first reviewer

1. I humbly accept all comments and thank you for your constructive comment

• The cut point in classifying gestational age was as follows < 37 weeks, 37-42 weeks, and > 42 weeks as a result weight less than 2500 grams is considered as less than 5th centile of the gestational age estimation (37 weeks). That is why we used the term low birth weight for all weights less than 2500 grams.

• We use only birth weight and we don’t have other information to diagnose FGR as a result we don’t know who are growth restricted or constitutionally small

• 18 Mothers were induced for obstetric and medical complications.

2. If at least one ANC(not referred and booked) follow-ups, considered as having ANC follow up but those who came with a referral from other institutions(151) will be asked whether they have ANC follow-up or not. If they have then how many follow-ups.

3. Congenital anomalies were excluded from the study.

Response for the second reviewer

1. I humbly accept all General comments and thank you for your constructive comment and then they all are corrected

Reference number 27…mentioned at the sample size estimation part

2. Abstract: Comments are Accepted and corrected

3. Introduction: Classification of the cesarean section depends on different factors like Emergent or non-emergent cesarean sections and is based on women’s request in some countries which is not accepted in our country unless the Mather had cesarean section scar. The other classification is the Robson classification of a cesarean section which is recommended by WHO.

• The reference for introduction paragraph 3 line one is reference number is 11

4. Methods: comments are accepted

• Negative fetal heartbeat: intrauterine fetal death cases at admission were excluded

• Those babies, who were healthy, were usually discharged after 24 hours. Since the study includes the first 7 days, we just contacted the mother on the phone whether the baby is breastfeeding well, alert, sleeping well, having fast breathing, and fever. We do this only for healthy babies but if there is any problem, the mother was informed to bring it back.

• The Mather was informed about the study, that there will be follow up upon discharge till 7 days, while she is in the hospital

• Discharged neonates were followed by data collectors assigned to specific neonates.

5. Results: comments are accepted

• Cause of neonatal death were taken from neonatal intensive care unit registration book and we don’t have set up to autopsies so we commonly reach the conclusion by clinical characteristics

6. Discussion: comments are accepted and corrected

7. Consent: comments are accepted and corrected

8. References: comments accepted and corrected

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to second reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file. (13.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Francesca Crovetto

28 Jan 2022

DETERMINANNTS OF EARLY NEONATAL OUTCOMES AFTER EMERGENCY CESSARIAN DELIVERY AT HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COMPRHENSSIVE SPECIALISED HOSPITAL, HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA

PONE-D-21-28401R1

Dear Dr. Tantu

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesca Crovetto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Francesca Crovetto

15 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-28401R1

DETERMINANTS OF EARLY NEONATAL OUTCOMES AFTER EMERGENCY CESAREAN DELIVERY AT HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE SPECIALISED HOSPITAL, HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA

Dear Dr. Tantu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Francesca Crovetto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. 1 s1 questionnaire for determinannts of early neonatal outcomes after emergency cesarean delivery at Hawassa University comprhenssive specialised hospital, Hawassa, Ethiopia.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (17.2KB, docx)
    S1 Data

    (SAV)

    Click here for additional data file. (30.8KB, sav)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to second reviewer.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (13.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES