Stitch in time saves nine: a retrospective study of uterine rupture over two years at a tertiary care hospital, Jabalpur
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20252733Keywords:
Uterine rupture, Unscarred uterus, Caesarean section, Maternal morbidity, Obstetric risk facotrs, Tertiary care hospitalAbstract
Background: Uterine rupture remains a critical obstetric emergency with unpredictable presentations and significant maternal-fetal risks. While often associated with prior caesarean sections, recent evidence points to a rising trend in unscarred ruptures in developing regions. This study aims to assess the incidence, risk profile, and outcomes of uterine rupture over a two-year period at a high-volume referral centre, identifying preventable gaps in care.
Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur, from April 2022 to March 2024. All women with complete uterine rupture in the second or third trimester were included. Data on demographics, obstetric history, rupture site, surgical management, and maternal-fetal outcomes were analysed. Preventive factors such as antenatal care and referral delays were also examined.
Results: Among 20,064 deliveries, 39 cases of uterine rupture were identified (1.94/1000). Of these, 61.5% occurred in scarred uteri and 38.5% in unscarred. Key contributing factors included short inter-delivery intervals, prolonged labour, previous uterine evacuation, and delayed referrals. Primary repair was performed in 71.8% of cases; hysterectomy and bladder repair were required in others. Maternal complications included anaemia, infection, and wound issues. The stillbirth rate was 74.4%, often linked to delayed presentation.
Conclusions: In addition to known risk factors, poor spacing, unregulated uterotonic use, and systemic referral delays contribute significantly to uterine rupture. Strengthening antenatal counselling, timely referral mechanisms, and obstetric preparedness at peripheral levels is essential to reduce the burden of this preventable emergency.
Metrics
References
Woo JY, Tate L, Roth S, Eke AC. Silent spontaneous uterine rupture at 36 weeks of gestation. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:596826. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/596826
Hofmeyr GJ, Say L, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. BJOG. 2005;112(9):1221-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5), India, 2019–21. Available at: https://main.mohfw.gov.in. Accessed on 12 May 2025.
Tan SQ, Chen LH, Qadir DBMA, Chern BS, Yeo GS. Risk factors and outcomes of uterine rupture in Singapore: Emerging trends. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2021;50(1):5-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2020319
Marwah S, Singh S, Bharti N, Kaur T, Taneja A, Sharma A. Risk factors and outcome analysis in rupture of gravid uterus: Lessons for obstetricians. Cureus. 2022;14(2):e21890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21890
Sentilhes L, Vayssiere C, Beucher G, Deneux-Tharaux C, Deruelle P, Diemunsch P, et al. Delivery for women with a previous cesarean: Guidelines for clinical practice. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2013;42(8):787-802.
Wan S, Yang M, Pei J, Zhao X, Zhou C, Wu Y, et al. Pregnancy outcomes and associated factors for uterine rupture: An 8-year population-based retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04415-6
Qureshi NS. Uterine rupture: still a major obstetric problem in developing countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;72(1):79-80.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan (PMSMA). Available at: https://pmsma.nhp.gov.in. Accessed on 12 May 2025.
Government of India. LaQshya – Labour Room Quality Improvement Initiative. Available at: https://nhm.gov.in. Accessed on 12 May 2025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
