Fetomaternal outcomes in term premature rupture of membranes: a prospective observational study from tribal Gujarat

Shivani R. Varma; Anshav D. Raval; Honey N. Patel; Khushbu A. Parmar

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20262110

Authors

Shivani R. Varma Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod, Gujarat, India
Anshav D. Raval Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod, Gujarat, India
Honey N. Patel Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod, Gujarat, India
Khushbu A. Parmar Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20262110

Keywords:

NICU admission, Mode of delivery, Fetomaternal outcome, Term PROM, Premature rupture of membranes, Neonatal complications

Abstract

Background: Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is a common obstetric condition associated with increased risk of maternal and neonatal complications if not managed appropriately. The duration between membrane rupture and delivery plays an important role in determining fetomaternal outcomes. Early diagnosis, timely induction of labour and proper monitoring are essential to minimize infection and adverse neonatal events, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on 130 pregnant women with term PROM admitted to a tertiary care hospital. Detailed history, clinical examination and relevant investigations were performed according to a standardized protocol. Patients were monitored during labor and induction was carried out using prostaglandins, oxytocin, or misoprostol when indicated. Data regarding duration of PROM, mode of delivery, maternal complications, neonatal birth weight, APGAR scores, NICU admissions and neonatal complications were recorded and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results: The majority of women belonged to the 21-25 years age group (41.54%), and most were from rural areas (93.85%). Vaginal delivery was achieved in 74.62%, while 25.38% required cesarean section, mainly due to fetal distress (39.39%). Most mothers had no complications (69.23%), although pyrexia occurred in 22.31%. Neonatal outcomes were generally favorable, with the majority of babies weighing 2.5-3.0 kg (43.85%) and having good APGAR scores at 5 minutes. NICU admission was required in 16.15% of neonates, with respiratory distress being the most common complication.

Conclusions: Term PROM, when managed with timely induction, appropriate monitoring and prompt obstetric intervention, is associated with favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes. Early diagnosis and structured management protocols can significantly reduce complications and improve fetomaternal prognosis.

References

Mercer BM. Preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:178-93.

Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371:75-84.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Prelabor rupture of membranes. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 217. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:e80-97.

Rouse DJ, Landon M, Leveno KJ, Leindecker S, Varner MW, Spong CY. Management of term premature rupture of membranes. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:895-900.

Sharma JB. Premature rupture of membranes: maternal and fetal complications. Indian J Med Res. 2012;136:741-52.

Hill LM, Breckle R, Moraco NH, Johnson JW, Lee M. Term PROM: incidence and outcomes. Am J Perinatol. 2010;27:515-21.

Goldenberg RL, Hauth JC, Andrews WW. Infection and PROM: pathophysiology. Lancet. 2000;355:784-9.

Mercer BM. Risk factors for term PROM. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:638-42.

Vintzileos AM, Egan JF. Diagnostic tests for PROM. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:837-44.

Kenyon S, Boulvain M, Neilson J. Antibiotics for preterm rupture of membranes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD001807.

Seravalli V, Colucci C, Di Cencio C, Tanganelli P, Mastrangelo G, Perrone G. Latency to delivery and incidence of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in preterm premature rupture of membranes before 32 weeks. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025;311:1569-77.

Ghosh D, Rani S, Bhattacharya S, Mehra R, Singh N, Kaur P. Safety and efficacy of extended expectant management in preterm premature rupture of membranes between 32 and 34 weeks of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025;310:113971.

Jiang Y, Zhang Y, Li Y, Wang H, Liu X, Chen J. Determinants for premature rupture of membranes: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25:633.

Dolina S, Kumar P, Singh N, Sharma A, Verma R, Gupta M. Risk factors associated with premature rupture of membranes: a case–control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:452.

Shetty A, Bhavya K, Rao S, Sharma R, Kulkarni M, Bhat P. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in term premature rupture of membranes managed by induction versus expectant management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022;48(6):1423-31.

Huang J, Song Y, Li Y, Wang X, Zhao H, Liu Q. Oral misoprostol versus oxytocin for induction of labor in term premature rupture of membranes: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5(4):100865.

Nagaria T, Diwan C, Jaiswal J. Fetomaternal outcome in premature rupture of membranes. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(12):4123-7.

Rawat R, Divedi P, Debbarma S, Vishwakarma S, Mittal N. Active vs expectant management of PROM. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:2393-8.

Shetty S, Shetty H. Fetomaternal outcomes in PROM at term. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:725-30.

Mukharya J, Mukharya S. Comparative study of PROM outcomes. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:149-64.