Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 61, No. 1, 2006
Issue release date: January 2006
Section title: Original Article
Gynecol Obstet Invest 2006;61:9–14
(DOI:10.1159/000087604)

Oronasopharyngeal Suction versus No Suction in Normal and Term Infants Delivered by Elective Cesarean Section: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Gungor S.a · Kurt E.b · Teksoz E.b · Goktolga U.a · Ceyhan T.a · Baser İ.a
Departments of aObstetrics and Gynecology and bAnesthesiology and Reanimation, Gulhane Military Medical Academy and Medical School, Ankara, Turkey

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Article

Received: 12/1/2004
Accepted: 6/14/2005
Published online: 1/9/2006
Issue release date: January 2006

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/GOI

Abstract

Background/Aim: There are controversies about the routine use of oronasopharyngeal suction (ONPS) in healthy infants. This study aimed to compare the effects of oronasopharyngeal suction with those of no suction in normal, term infants delivered by cesarean section. Methods: 140 term, healthy newborns of uncomplicated pregnancies were prospectively randomized to one of two groups according to the use of ONPS procedure. Differences in oxygen saturation levels, heart rates, and Apgar scores were determined. Results: The mean SaO2 values through the 2nd and 6th min of life were significantly higher in the no suction group (p < 0.001). The maximum time to reach SaO2 of ≧92% (6 vs. 11 min) and ≧86% (5 vs. 8 min) saturation were shorter in the no suction group than in the ONPS group. The mean heart rates were consistently and significantly lower in the no suction group during the first 6 min except the second one. All neonates without suction had an Apgar score of 10 at the 5th min, while the mean ± SD for ONPS group was 9.34 ± 0.48 (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although findings remained on statistical level and did not lead to clinically adverse outcomes, there is no statistical or physiological basis for oronasopharyngeal suction as a systematic procedure in healthy, term infants delivered by cesarean section.

© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Article

Received: 12/1/2004
Accepted: 6/14/2005
Published online: 1/9/2006
Issue release date: January 2006

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/GOI


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.