Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women who were screened with one or two-step screening programs for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus.Study Design: A retrospective evaluation was made of pregnant women who were screened with one step [75 g oral glucose tolerance test] or two-step screening programs [50 g oral glucose challenge test and 100 g oral glucose tolerance test] depending on the preference of the physician between September 2016 and August 2017.Results: The one-step screening program was applied to 34.1% (n:1358) of the pregnancies and the remaining 65.9% (n=2623) were screened using the two-step program. The following results were obtained for the pregnant women applied with the one and two-step screening programs, respectively; mean age: 29.37±7.6 years and 28.1 ± 6.2 years, gestational diabetes mellitus: 8.8% and 4.8%, pre-term birth:5.2% and 6.9%, term birth: 89.8% and 85.5%, post-term birth: 5% and 7.6%, vaginal delivery: 74.8% and 67.5%, caesarean section delivery: 25.2% and 32.5%, birth weight: 3389±432 gr and 3234.1 ± 415.9 gr, and mean 5-minute APGAR score: 9.1 ± 0.4 and 9.2 ± 0.7. Comparisons showed statistically significant differences between the groups.Conclusion: The study results showed a significantly higher rate of gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis for the pregnant women screened with the one-step screening program than the two-step screening program. Although the mean maternal age was significantly higher in the pregnant women screened with the one-step screening program, these pregnancies were observed to have better outcomes (low rates of preterm birth, post-term birth, caesarean delivery and high rates of term birth, vaginal delivery). These results can be attributed to the early referral to a treatment program and follow-up, even though more cases of gestational diabetes mellitus were diagnosed with the one-step screening program.

The aims of this study were to identify the explanatory variables associated with failure of induction of labour (IOL) and to designate nomograms that predict probability. This retrospective study included 1328 singleton term pregnant women (37–42 weeks). The penalised maximum likelihood estimation (PMLE) method was used instead of traditional logistic regression. Of the 25,678 deliveries that occurred during the study period, 1328 (5.1%) women underwent term delivery. Of those, 1125 (84.7%) had successful vaginal deliveries and 203 (15.3%) had failed vaginal deliveries following use of a dinoprostone slow-release vaginal insert. Explanatory variables were discovered that were associated with delivery failure in term pregnancy undergoing induction of labour with an unfavourable cervix, and a nomogram that predicted probability was developed.

Caesarean skin scars (CSS; hypertrophic scars and keloids) are very stressful for women and treatment strategies vary. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the outcome of surgical excision of CSS during caesarean section (CS). The study aims to determine the rate of recurrence and risk factors of recurrence for surgically removed CSS. This is a retrospective cohort study that used STROBE guidelines. Pfannenstiel incisions of 145 patients were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: recurred (group 1, n = 19) and non-recurred group (group 2, n = 126). The groups were compared. The rate of recurrence of CSS was 13% in the total cohort (19/145), one of the main outcomes of the study. While emergency CS was performed for 12 patients in group 1 (63%), CS was carried out in 25 patients in group 2 (20%); this difference was significant (P = 0.001). Before surgery, white blood cell and neutrophil counts were significantly higher in group 1 (P = 0.014 and P = 0.023, respectively). There were 11 dark-skinned women (26%; Fitzpatrick type 4) in group 1 and 31 (74%) in group 2. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.031). As the other main outcome, emergency CS could be accepted as a risk factor for recurrence in the multivariate regression analysis (P = 0.060; odds ratio = 5.07; 95% confidence interval = 0.93–17.51). The rate of recurrence of surgically removed previous CSS at CS is promising without adjunct therapy. Emergency CS was found to be a risk factor for recurrence. Background Caesarean skin scars (CSS; hypertrophic scars and keloids) are very stressful and are generally itchy and painful for women. Treatment strategies vary. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the outcome of only surgical excision of CSS scars during caesarean section (CS). The issue being explored There are few data in the literature for CSS in the lower abdomen. These scars can be removed during the second or third CS, but the results are not known exactly. How was the work conducted? In our clinic, 145 patients with CSS were given a CS and their scars were removed at the same time. While most of these scars were reported as hypertrophic by pathological examination, some were reported as keloid. At the earliest, one year after surgery, the rate of recurrence was found to be 13%. What we learned from the study Asymptomatic patients who are planning another pregnancy and do not want to receive any other radiotherapy or steroid injection therapy can wait to remove their CSS at the next CS, especially elective CS with or without adjunct therapy. Emergency CS was found to be a risk factor for the recurrence of these scars.