Madiha Afzal, Uzma Aziz, Raboa Nosheen
Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences

Peer Reviewed

Previous Published Issues



Aim: To compare the obstetric outcome’s differences between primigravida admitted in latent labour with primigravida admitted in active labor

Methods: It was a descriptive cross sectional study done from January to March 2020 at Arif Memorial Teaching Hospital including total 400 low risk nulliparous patients. Data was analyzed using SPSS 17 while considering a p value <0.05 significant.

Results: The two groups of patients were compared for the obstetric interventions like augmentation with oxytocin and amniotomy and it was observed that 64 (32%) patients vs. 36 (18%) patients with (p value <0.05) for augmentation and 85 patients (42.5%) vs. 46 (23%) patients with (p value < 0.05) for amniotomy were comparatively higher in latent group as compared to active labor admission respectively .Instrumental vaginal delivery 47 (23.5%) vs. 19 (9.5 %) and (p value < 0.05) and caesarean section 83 (41.5%) vs. 47 (23.5%) with (p value < 0.05) were higher in latent phase participants than active phase patients respectively. While SVD rates were higher in active phase participants than those admitted in latent phase 165 (82.5%) vs 103 (51.5%) and (p value <0.05). Maternal outcome like PPH 39 (19.5%) vs. 17(8.5%) with (p value <0.05) and genital tears 37 (18.5%) vs 25 (12.5%) and (p value <0.05) were observed more in latent phase than active phase patients respectively..

Conclusion: Admission in latent labor in low risk nulliparous patients is a risk factor for increased need for obstetrical interventions, operative delivery and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes when compared with nulliparous participants admitted in active phase of labor.

Keywords: Primigravida, Latent Phase, Active phase, Obstetric outcome

Copyright © Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2021. All rights reserved!