<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8792</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojog.2023.1311156</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-129172</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Obstetric Emergencies: Frequency, Socio-Demographic Aspects and Risk Factors at the Labe Regional Hospital Maternity Unit (Guinea)
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ibrahima</surname><given-names>Conté</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ibrahima</surname><given-names>Sylla</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ousmane</surname><given-names>Baldé</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Aboubacar</surname><given-names>Fodé Momo Soumah</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdourahamane</surname><given-names>Baldé</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Oumou</surname><given-names>Hawa Bah</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ibrahima</surname><given-names>Sory Baldé</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdoulaye</surname><given-names>Bademba Diallo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Telly</surname><given-names>Sy</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ignace Deen National Hospital, University Hospital Centre, Conakry, Guinea</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Labé Regional Hospital, Labé, Guinea</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Donka National Hospital, University Hospital Centre, Conakry, Guinea</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>06</day><month>11</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>1849</fpage><lpage>1858</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>14,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>18,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>21,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Introduction:
  <b> </b>
  Obstetric emergencies are clinical situations of a serious nature, often
   
  dangerous, which develop unexpectedly, threatening the vital prognosis of the mother and/or foetus in the short term. The aim of this study was to contribute to a review of obstetric emergencies at the Lab&#233; Regional Hospital maternity unit. <b>Methods:</b>
  <b> </b>
  This was a prospective descriptive and analytical study conducted over a period of 6 months in the maternity unit of the Lab&#233; Regional Hospital. It concerned all patients admitted to the departme
  nt for obstetric emergencies. <b>Results</b>: Obstetric emergencies accounted for 20% of obstetric admissions. The mean age of the patients was 25.12
   
  &#177;
   
  7.15 years, with extremes of 14 and 45 years. The patients were housewives (42.52%), 
  42.86% did not attend school and 77.41% were from urban areas. The poor were the most numerous (43.52%). The ambulance was the means of transport in only 9% of cases.
   
  Acute foetal distress, pre-eclampsia, bony dystocia and post-partum haemorrhage were the most common types of emergency in our series, with frequencies of 27.57%, 22.59%, 17.94% and 10.63% respectively. The risk factors identified were age, origin, gestational age and the state of the maternal pelvis. <b>Conclusion</b>: Obstetric emergencies are frequent in our study site and represent a major concern for patients, providers and the community alike. In order to reduce the frequency of obstetric emergencies, young girls should be enrolled in school, the legal age for marriage should be respected, quality antenatal care should be provided in basic health facilities, an
  d proper planning and spacing of pregnancies should be implemented.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Obstetric Emergencies</kwd><kwd> Frequency</kwd><kwd> Risk Factors</kwd><kwd> Lab&#233;</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Obstetric emergencies are serious, often dangerous clinical situations that develop unexpectedly, with a short-term impact on the vital prognosis of the mother and/or foetus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref2">2</xref>] . Gravido-puerperium puts women at risk of obstetric complications that may be responsible for high maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref3">3</xref>] . The most common complications are haemorrhage, bony dystocia, acute foetal distress, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>Obstetric emergencies are the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide, particularly in developing countries where illiteracy, poverty, lack of antenatal care, poor transport infrastructure and inadequate equipment and personnel combine to exacerbate the problem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref6">6</xref>] . In these countries, pregnant women are very often exposed to serious risks that can lead to a fatal outcome. This is often due to the inadequacy of referral facilities and the low educational and socio-economic levels of the population [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>The frequency of obstetric emergencies varies: 6.1% with a maternal lethality of 9.6% and a foetal lethality of 18.5% in 2017 in Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref8">8</xref>] ; 6.03% with a maternal lethality of 2.63% in 2015 in the Democratic Republic of Congo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref1">1</xref>] and 31.8% with a maternal lethality of 9.2% in 2015 in Benin [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref9">9</xref>] . In Guinea [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref10">10</xref>] in 2021, it was 20.7% with a maternal lethality of 5.2% and a perinatal lethality of 30.3%. The objectives of this study were to calculate the frequency of obstetric emergencies, establish the socio-demographic profile of patients and identify the risk factors associated with obstetric emergencies at Lab&#233; Regional Hospital.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Type and Period of Study</title><p>This was a prospective descriptive and analytical study lasting 6 months from 3 August 2018 to 03 February 2019, carried out in the maternity ward of Lab&#233; regional hospital.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Study Population</title><p>The study included all patients admitted for obstetric emergencies to the Lab&#233; regional hospital maternity unit during the study period.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Selection Criteria</title><p>All patients, regardless of origin, admitted for obstetric emergencies and who agreed to participate in the study were included. All women admitted for obstetric emergencies who refused to participate in the study were excluded.</p><p>We conducted an exhaustive recruitment of all patients admitted for obstetric emergencies during the study period who met the criteria. The variables studied were sociodemographic characteristics, obstetric characteristics and risk factors.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Data Collection, Entry and Analysis</title><p>Data were collected using a pre-established questionnaire, entered and analysed using Epi Info 7.2.1, Excel and Pack Office 2013.</p><p>For quantitative variables, we formed classes, calculated the mean and standard deviation, and identified the minimum and maximum. For qualitative variables, we determined the proportion expressed as a percentage (%). The most recurrent emergencies were entered into a logistic regression model with socio-demographic data and obstetric characteristics. A p-value of less than 5% with a 95% confidence interval was used as the significance threshold.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Ethical Considerations</title><p>We obtained the agreement of the health authority. Confidentiality and anonymity were respected.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Frequency of Obstetric Emergencies</title><p>During the six (6) months of data collection, we recorded 301 patients admitted for obstetric emergencies out of 1505 admissions, i.e. a frequency of 20%.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Patients</title><p>The average age of the patients was 25.12 &#177; 7.15 years, with extremes of 14 and 45 years. More than 70% of the patients were under 30 years of age, 42.52% were housewives and 42.86% had no schooling. 77.41% of patients were from urban areas (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>The majority of patients presenting with obstetric emergencies were transported by personal vehicles (47.51%), followed by motorbike taxis (32.89%) and ambulances (8.97%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Obstetrical Characteristics</title><p>In our sample, the paucigravida were the most numerous, accounting for 43.52% of the total.</p><p>Almost all the patients had attended between one and 3 antenatal clinics (95% of cases). Acute foetal distress, pre-eclampsia, bony dystocia and post-partum haemorrhage were the most common types of emergency in our series, with frequencies of 27.57%, 22.59%, 17.94% and 10.63% respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Risk factors</title><p>Logistic regression model: we used a logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for the four main obstetric emergencies in Lab&#233;.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of the 301 patients according to socio-demographic characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sociodemographic characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number N = 301</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age in years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 - 29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 - 39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.65</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean &#177; Standard deviation</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >25.12 &#177; 7.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Minimum and maximum</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >14 et 45 years</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Out of school</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >129</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.86</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.93</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >University</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Profession</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Housewife</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Self-employed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pupil/Student</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Employees</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.59</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urban</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >233</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.41</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Breakdown of 301 patients by means of transport</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Means of transport</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number N = 301</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Personal vehicle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >143</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Motorbike taxi</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ambulance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.97</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Public transport</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.98</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Feet</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.65</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of the 301 patients according to obstetric characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Obstetrical characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number N = 301</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gestite</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primigeste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Paucigeste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multigeste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prenatal consultation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.65</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 - 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >286</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 or more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Types of emergency</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute foetal distress</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Preeclampsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.59</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bone dystocia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.94</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Post partum haemorrhage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Placenta previa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Retroplacental haematoma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eclampsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Breech presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetopelvic disproportion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine rupture</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Procidence of the arm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pulsatile cord prolapse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal death in utero</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe malaria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Partial retention of placenta</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Retention of second twin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.66</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The frequency of obstetric emergencies in our sample was 20%. In the literature, it varied between 18.5% and 31.8% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>This high frequency in this study can be explained by the fact that the regional hospital is the referral facility for all the health structures in the region, thus ensuring the management of emergencies from district hospitals, health centres, clinics and maternity homes. Obstetric emergencies are therefore a major concern for both the population and healthcare providers.</p><p>The mean age of our patients was 25.12 &#177; 7.15 years with extremes of 14 and 45 years. An average age of 24.01 &#177; 6.30 years with extremes of 15 and 43 years was reported by Samak&#233; A in Mali [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref13">13</xref>] . However, more than 70% of our population was under 30.</p><p>This age group corresponds to the period of full reproductive activity for women. Housewives and those not attending school accounted for 42.52% and 42.86% respectively. In contrast, Owono Etoundi P et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref14">14</xref>] found that over 70% of their samples were students and housewives. The predominance of housewives could be explained by their position in society. These low-income women are subject to high levels of stress and physical exertion, which favours the rapid onset of complications during pregnancy.</p><p>For the place of follow-up, 77.41% of patients were followed up in urban areas, this result is different from Owono Etoundi P et Coll [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref14">14</xref>] in Yaound&#233; in 2017, who reported 52.9% of patients followed up in rural areas and 47.1% in urban areas. Ha BTT [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref15">15</xref>] described that educated women are better able to absorb maternal health messages and are therefore more likely to attend antenatal care services.</p><p>In our sample, only 8.97% of patients were transported by ambulance compared with 47.51% by personal vehicles and 32.89% by motorbike taxis. Similarly, Tchaou BA et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref12">12</xref>] in Benin in 2015 reported that 2.2% of patients received medical transport compared with 78.9% in public transport vehicles. The inadequacy of the road network, the lack of ambulances in hospitals and the absence of Emergency Medical Assistance Services (SAMU) would justify this result.</p><p>Multi-gestures represented 69.10% of our sample. The same trend was observed by Boyoma BM [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref11">11</xref>] 2011 in DRC 81.1%. Almost all (95%) of our pregnant women had had one to 3 antenatal consultations. Mutombo K et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref1">1</xref>] in 2015 noted that 72.37% of their sample had not received antenatal care. For the same group, Owono Etoundi P and Coll [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref14">14</xref>] in Yaound&#233; 2017 noted 48.6% in their study. According to the World Health Organisation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref12">12</xref>] , antenatal consultations are therefore a privileged means of reducing the unfavourable outcome of high-risk pregnancies in particular and pregnancies in general.</p><p>Acute foetal distress, pre-eclampsia, bony dystocia and post partum haemorrhage were the most frequent types of emergency in our series with frequencies of 27.57%, 22.59%, 17.94% and 10.63% respectively. Our result is similar to that of Tonato Bagnan J.A. et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref16">16</xref>] who reported that haemorrhage, hypertensive pathologies and acute foetal distress dominated the types of emergency with respectively 36%, 24.5% and 15.3%. On the other hand, Owono Etoundi P et Coll [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref14">14</xref>] in Yaound&#233; 2017 noted hypertensive pathologies (72.3%), antepartum haemorrhage (13.5%) and infections (10.2%) as the most frequent types. In the series by Tchaou BA et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref12">12</xref>] in Benin in 2015, the major groups of obstetric emergencies identified in descending order were: dystocia, haemorrhagic emergencies, hypertensive emergencies, foetal hypoxia, infectious emergencies and anaemia in pregnancy.</p><p>For post partum haemorrhage with basic socio-demographic characteristics (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>), we found that pregnant women aged 20 - 29 years had a higher risk of post partum haemorrhage than those ≤20 years (p = 0.0142). The fact that the mother was attended in an urban area was a statistically significant protective factor for haemorrhage with p = 0.0036. With regard to pre-eclampsia (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>), we found a statistically significant associationbetween gestational age over 35 compared with 20 - 29 and the occurrence of pre-eclampsia (p = 0.049).</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Logistic regression model of obstetric haemorrhage with baseline socio-demographic characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Basic sociodemographic characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Odds Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >95%</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s age in years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;18/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7921</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1965</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7432</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 - 35/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8395</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2333</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0142</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;35/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9836</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5589</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2892</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health facility of origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urban/rural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1423</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0036</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary/no education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3524</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0961</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1156</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary/no education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7122</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2792</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4776</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >University/no education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5916</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0594</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6544</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Logistic regression model of preeclampsia with basic socio-demographic characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Basic sociodemographic characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Odds Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >95%</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s age in years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;18/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2393</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0632</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 - 35/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3841</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7219</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3277</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;35/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6713</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0004</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0499</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health facility of origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urban/rural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9403</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4550</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8680</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary/no education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4268</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6581</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3680</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary/not educated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7869</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3642</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5421</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >University/not in education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2291</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0250</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1919</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Concerning acute foetal distress (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>), the fact that the mother was followed in an urban area was identified as a risk factor with p = 0.036. Age between 20 - 29 years was a protective factor compared with 30 - 39 years with p = 0.0046. On the other hand, age under 18 years was a statistically significant risk factor for the occurrence of osseous dystocia with p = 0.00001 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). According to the results of the regression (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>), being primigravida or paucigravida represented a statistically significant risk factor compared with multigestation in the occurrence of osseous dystocia with respective p values of 0.0001 and 0.0003.</p><p>The immaturity of the maternal organism in women under 18 years of age, generally at their first gesture, especially early marriage in an African context, would explain our result.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Logistic regression model of obstetric acute foetal distress with baseline socio-demographic characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Basic sociodemographic characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Odds Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >95%</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s age in years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;18/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0512</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4408</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9104</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26-35/18-25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6810</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3611</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2354</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;35/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4961</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1529</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2431</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health facility of origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urban/rural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2797</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0540</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0363</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary/no education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9801</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4647</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9578</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary/not educated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6923</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3420</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3066</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >University/not in education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8410</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8040</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> logistic regression model of the narrowed pelvis or obstetrical limit with the basic socio-demographic characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Basic sociodemographic characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Odds Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >95%</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s age in years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;18/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0511</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0379</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 - 35/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2541</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0986</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0046</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 - 45/18 - 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1890</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0237</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1154</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health facility of origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urban/rural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4429</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6061</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4074</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mother’s level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary/no education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3208</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4986</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5756</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary/not educated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8467</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7927</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1551</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >University/not in education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6934</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7830</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0988</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Logistic regression model of shrunken or borderline pelvis with obstetric characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Obstetrical characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Odds Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >95%</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gestite</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pauci geste/Multi geste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8784</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.851</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0003</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primigeste/Multi geste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9776</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.0805</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prenatal consultation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 - 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0646</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1279</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 or more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5944</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3071</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1227</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>In the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129172-ref18">18</xref>] , it is described that the occurrence of obstetrical complications is associated with the presence of factors such as the mother’s age, level of education, religion, parity, socio-economic level and the absence of a health facility.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusions</title><p>This study has shown that obstetric emergencies are frequent at our site.</p><p>The profile of the patient developing the obstetrical emergency was that of a patient in the 20 - 29 age group, not educated, from the urban area and multiple gestures.</p><p>Acute foetal distress, pre-eclampsia, bony dystocia and post-partum haemorrhage were the most common types of emergency. The risk factors identified were: age, origin, gestational age and the state of the maternal pelvis.</p><p>In order to reduce the frequency of obstetric emergencies, young girls should be enrolled in school, the legal age for marriage should be respected, quality antenatal consultations should be offered in basic facilities, and proper planning and ideal spacing of pregnancies should be applied for health reasons.</p><p>It follows from this study that adequate management of obstetric emergencies is a matter for the health authorities, service providers, pregnant women and the community.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Cont&#233;, I., Sylla, I., Bald&#233;, O., Soumah, A.F.M., Bald&#233;, A., Bah, O.H., Bald&#233;, I.S., Diallo, A.B. and Sy, T. (2023) Obstetric Emergencies: Frequency, Socio-Demographic Aspects and Risk Factors at the Labe Regional Hospital Maternity Unit (Guinea). Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 13, 1849-1858. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2023.1311156</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.129172-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mutombo, C.K., Mukandila, A.M. and Mikenji, J.B. (2015) Profil et pronostic des urgences obstétricales en salle de travail de la Maternité Bonzola à Mbujimayi. Mali Méd, 30, 65-73.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Prasad, D., Nishat, H., Tiwary, B., Nisha, S., Sinha, A. and Goel, N. (2018) Review of Obstetrical Emergencies and Fetal Outcome in a Tertiary Care Centre. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 6, 1554-1558.  
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20181467</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mekango, D.E., Alemayehu, M., Gebregergs, G.B., Medhanyie, A.A. and Goba, G. (2017) Determinants of Maternal Near Miss Among Women in Public Hospital Maternity Wards in Northern Ethiopia: A Facility Based Case-Control Study. PLOS ONE, 12, e0183886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183886</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">AMANHI Maternal Morbidity Study Group (2016) Burden of Severe Maternal Morbidité and Association with Adverse Birth Outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study. Journal of Global Health, 6, 1-10.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Geller, S.E., Koch, A.R., Garland, C.E., MacDonald, E.J., Storey, F. and Lawton, B. (2018) A Global View of Severe Maternal Morbidity: Moving beyond Maternal Mortality. Reproductive Health, 15, 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0527-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mustafa Adelaja, L. and Olufemi Taiwo, O. (2011) Maternal and Fetal Outcome of Obstetric Emergencies in a Tertiary Health Institution in South-Western Nigeria. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011, Article ID: 160932.  
https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/160932</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Compaoré, D.G., Meda, N., Goufodji, S., Djangnikpo, L., Agbla, S. and Borchert, M. (2014) Cross-Sectional Study of Obstetric “Escapees” and Maternal Deaths in Hospitals in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. Revue d’épidémiologie et de Santé Publique, 62, S248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2014.06.250</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tcheyanou</surname><given-names> L.L.K. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2015</year>)<article-title>Obstetric Emergencies in the Intensive Care Unit of the Gynaecological-Obstetric and Paediatric Hospital of Yaoundé: Epidemiology, Clinic and Prognosis</article-title><source> health Sciences and Disease</source><volume> 8</volume>,<fpage> 216</fpage>-<lpage>223</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Blaise, A.T., Nouessewa Fanny, M.H., Kabibou, S. and Eugène, Z.M.C. (2015) Obstetrical Emergencies at Parakou University Hospital in Benin: Clinical, Therapeutic and Evolutionary Aspects. European Scientific Journal, 11, 260-272.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Diallo, M.H., Diallo, F.B., Keita, M., Baldé, D.B., Barry, A.B., Baldé, I.S., et al. (2021) Gynecological and Obstetrical Emergencies at the University Clinic of Gynecology-Obstetrics of the National Hospital Donka Guinea. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 11, 1862-1874. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2021.1112173</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boyoma, B.M. (2011) Study of the Frequency of Obstetrical Emergencies at the Kamina General Referral Hospital, Democratic Republic of Congo. Memoire Online, 13, 18.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchaou, B.A., Hounkponou, N.F.M., Salifou, K., Zoumenou, E. and Chobli, M. (2015) Obstetric Emergencies at the Parakou University Hospital in Benin: Clinical, Therapeutic and Evolutionary Aspects. European Scientific Journal, 11, 1857-1881.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Samakè, A., Traoré, S.O., Kéita, M., Albachar, H., Traoré, O.M., Diallo, M., et al. (2020) Unattended Pregnancies: Maternal and Perinatal Prognosis at the Commune V Reference Health Centre in the District of Bamako. Health Sciences and Diseases, 21, 74-77.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Owono Etoundi, P., Metogo Mbengono, A.J., Tchokam, L., Danwang, C., Kago Tcheyanou, L., Afane Ela, A., et al. (2017) Obstetric Complications Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Prognosis. Health Sciences and Diseases, 18, 48-52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ha, B.T.T., Tac, P.V., Duc, D.M., Duong, D.T.T. and Thi, L.M. (2015) Factors Associated with Four or More Antenatal Care Services among Pregnant Women: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Eight South Central Coast Provinces of Vietnam. International Journal of Women’s Health, 7, 699-706. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S87276</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tonato Bagnan, J.A., Lokossou, M.S.H.S., Tshabu Aguemon, C., Yessoufou, M.M.A.O., Adisso, S., Lokossou, A. and Perrin, R.X. (2017) Obstetrical Emergencies at the University Gynaecology and Obstetrics Clinic (Cugo) of the Centre National Hospitalier et Universitaire Hubert Koutoucou Maga (CNHU-HKM) in Cotonou: Epidemiological and Prognostic Aspects. Journal of SAGO (Gynaecology - Obstetrics and Reproductive Health), 18, 1-10.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manyeh, A.K., Nathan, R. and Nelson, G. (2018) Maternal Mortality in Ifakara Health and Demographic Surveillance System: Spatial Patterns, Trends and Risk Factors, 2006-2010. PLOS ONE, 13, e0205370.  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205370</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129172-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kynes, J.M. and Newton, M.W. (2019) Anaesthesia Providers and Maternal Mortality in Africa. The Lancet Global Health, 7, e1321.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30284-0</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>