Maternal-Fetal Prognosis of the Prophylactic Cesaarian versus Emergency Cesaarian at the Reference Health Center of Commune V of Bamako District, Mali

Objectives: The goal was to assess the risk factors for emergency cesarean section versus prophylactic caesarean section. Materials and Methods: This was a descriptive analytical cross-sectional study of the Type Cas/Witnesses at the Reference Health Centre of Commune V of the District of Bamako in Mali. The sample consisted of 100 cases for 200 controls (1 case for 2 controls) with retrospective collection of data for the period from January 1 to July 11, 2011 (6 months and 11 days). Results: During the study period, out of a total of 3559 deliveries, we recorded 2,794 vaginal deliveries, 78.50% and 765 caesarean sections or 21.50%. Of the 765ceras, we performed 353 emergency caesarean sections or 46.15% and 412 prophylactic caesarean sections 53.85%. We have selected 100 prophylactic caesarean section files and 200 emergency caesarean section files. The average age of the patients was 27.41 years-5.84 with extreme ages of 14 to 40 years. 100% of our patients (Cas) had performed at least one antenatal consultation compared to 83.5% of the parturients evacuated (Witnesses). The most frequently cited reasons for evacuation were: acute fetal suffering, non-cephalic presentation and excessive uterine height with 30%, 17.5% and 12% respectively. The bulk of the caesarean section indications were dominated by dystocies with 90% in cases compared to 65% in Witnesses, followed by acute fetal suffering with 30% in Witnesses. We recorded 30% perinatal deaths among Witnesses compared to 1% in Cases. We recorded 16 uterine ruptures in the Witnesses among which 2 hysterectomies and 14 hystererraphia. Conclusion: Prophylactic caesarean section improves maternal and perinatal prognosis more than emergency caesarean section.