Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 273, Issue 2, pp 107–109 | Cite as

Destructive operations in modern obstetrics

  • Savita Rani SinghalEmail author
  • Pooja Chaudhry
  • Krishna Sangwan
  • Suresh Kumar Singhal
Original Article


This is a retrospective study carried out over a period of 7 years at a tertiary care hospital to evaluate the indications, types and complications of destructive operations. During this period, 51 destructive operations were performed on women with obstructed labor and intrauterine fetal death. The most common operation performed was craniotomy (68.62%) followed by decapitation (19.60%), evisceration (7.84%) and cleidotomy (3.92%). The most common indication was cephalopelvic disproportion (31.25%). Out of 53 babies delivered (one triplet delivery), two were grossly malformed and 49.05% babies had birth weight between 3.0 kg and 4.0 kg and 9.43% were macrosomic. A total of 45.09% women had complications like atonic PPH, vaginal and perineal tears, puerperal sepsis and urinary tract infection. However, there was no maternal death. It is felt that for the women who belong to poor socio-economic status and have poor compliance and who present late in labor with features of obstruction, intrauterine sepsis and fetal death, destructive operation is still a good option.


Obstructed labor Destructive operation Intrauterine fetal death 


  1. 1.
    Arora R, Rajaram P, Oumachigui A (1993) Destructive operations in modern obstetrics in developing country at tertiary level. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100(10):967–968PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhoumik AC (1974) Place of manipulative obstetrics in modern obstetric practice. J Obstet Gynecol India 24:9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biswas A, Chakraborty PS, Das HS, Bose A, Kalasar PK (2001) Role of destructive operations in modern day obstetrics. J Indian Med Assoc 99(5):245, 250–251Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chowdhry NNR, Sikdar K (1981) Destructive operations in a teaching hospital. J Obstet Gynecol India 31:73–76Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gogoi MP (1971) Maternal mortality from caesarean section in infected cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 78:373–376Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goswami B, Das A, Chowdhury SS, Ghosh D, Bhattacharya S (1981) Destructive operations in present day obstetric practice. J Obstet Gynecol India 31:292–295Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Konar H, Adhya SK, Chakraborty AB (1992) Obstetrics—past and present (a comparative review of 210 cases of obstructed labor). J Indian Med Assoc 90:18–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Modak GC, Chowdhry A, Goswami BK, Dawn CS (1979) Problems with transverse lie. Calcutta Med J 76:87–92Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sahu NK, Sinha A (1990) Emergence of manoeuvres in preference to caesarean section in the management of obstructed labor. J Obstet Gynecol India 40:217–222Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tariq TA, Korejo R (1993) Evaluation of the role of craniotomy in developing countries. J Pak Med Assoc 43(2):30–32PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Savita Rani Singhal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pooja Chaudhry
    • 1
  • Krishna Sangwan
    • 1
  • Suresh Kumar Singhal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyPt. B.D. Sharma PGIMSHaryanaIndia
  2. 2.Department of AnaesthesiaPt. B.D. Sharma PGIMSHaryanaIndia

Personalised recommendations