Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 247, Issue 4, pp 187–195 | Cite as

The grand multipara — still an obstetrical challenge?

  • P. Sipilä
  • L. von Wendt
  • A. -L. Hartikainen-Sorri
Originals

Summary

To study whether grand multiparity (parity of 6 or more) still carries risk, we studied two birth cohorts in northern Finland: the first comprised 12231 births to 12068 mothers in 1966 and the second comprised 9478 births to 9362 mothers in 1985/86. The percentage of grand multipara decreased from 7.7 to 4.0. The grand multipara made fewer antenatal visits than the others. The proportion of grand multipara referred to maternity outpatient clinics of hospitals was smaller, but the mean number of visits was higher than of lower parity women. The mean number of admissions to hospital was similar in both groups but grand multipara stayed longer in hospital, smoked less (4.3% vs. 22.7%) and had a higher incidence of essential hypertension than women of lower parity. The grand multipara had fewer caesarean sections (7.5% vs. 14.1%) and vacuum extractions (0.5% vs. 5.1%) but more inductions of labour (33.1% vs. 23.%) than mothers of lower parity. The number of low birth weight (LBW) infants (<2500 grams), stillbirths and neonatal deaths (before 28 days) was significantly lower in 1985/86 than in 1966 in women of lower parity but there was no such change in grand multipara. However, the percentage of LBW infants was smaller among grand multipara than among women of lower parity in both cohorts (2.7% vs. 4.1%, NS). The stillbirth plus neonatal death rate in grand multipara was higher than in women of lower parity (1.9% vs. 0.9%,P<0.05) partly because of a higher incidence of major congenital anomalies.

Key words

Parity Risk factors Prenatal care Pregnancy outcome Pregnancy complications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baskett TF (1977) Grand multiparity — a continuing threat: a 6-year review. CMA Journal 116:1001–1004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang A, Larkin P, Esler EJ, Condie R, Morrison J (1977) The obstetric performance of the grand multipara. Med J Aust 1:330–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daniels P, Weingarten K (1979) A new look at the medical risks in late childbearing. Women Health 4:5–36Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eidelman AI, Kamar R, Schimmel MS, Bar-On E (1988) The grandmultipara: is she still a risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol 158:389–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuchs K, Peretz A (1961) The problem of the “grand multipara”. A review of 1677 cases. Obstet Gynecol 18:719–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuchs K, Peretz B-A, Marcovici R, Paldi E, Timor-Tritsh I (1985) The “grand multipara” — is it a problem? A review of 5785 cases. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 23:321–325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keeping JD, Najman JM, Morrison J, Western JS, Andersen MJ, Williams GM (1989) A prospective longitudinal study of social, psychological and obstetric factors in pregnancy: response rates and demographic characteristics of the 8556 respondents. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 96:289–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirz DS, Dorchester W, Freeman RK (1985) Advanced maternal age: the mature gravida. Am J Obstet Gynecol 152:7–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McAnarney ER (1987) Young maternal age and adverse neonatal outcome. AJDC 141:1053–1059PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson JH, Sandmeyer MW (1958) A study of 812 grand multiparas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 75:1262–1266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rantakallio P (1969) Groups at risk in low birth weight infants and perinatal mortality. Acta Paediatr Scand [Suppl] 193:1–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scharfman E, Silverstein LM (1962) The grand multipara. A survey of 403 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 84:11, 1442–1446Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schram ELR (1954) The problem of the grand multipara. Am J Obstet Gynecol 67:253–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seidman DS, Gale R, Slater PE, Ever-Hadani P, Harlap S (1987) Does grand multiparity affect fetal outcome? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 25:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sipilä P, Hartikainen-Sorri A-L, Rantakallio P (1987) The influence of twenty years on the demografic and social factors of parturients in Northern Finland. Arctic Med Res 45/87:68Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solomons B (1934) The dangerous multipara. Lancet II:8–11Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tanbo TG, Bungum L (1987) The grand multipara-maternal and neonatal complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 66:53–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tilastotiedotus (1986) Asuntokunnat ja perheet 1984. Central Statistical Office of FinlandGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ventura SJ, Hendershot GE (1984) Infant Health Consequences of childbearing by teenagers and older mothers. Public Health Reports 99:138–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vienonen M (1986) An information system for maternal health care in the province of Keski-Suomi (Central Finland); birth weight as an indicator of fetal well-being. Health Services Research by the National Board of Health in Finland. Valtion Painatuskeskus, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Sipilä
    • 3
  • L. von Wendt
    • 1
  • A. -L. Hartikainen-Sorri
    • 3
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of OuluFinland
  2. 2.Department for Handicap ResearchUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations