STUDY DESIGN: Participants were randomized to intravenous bolus injection of 100mcg carbetocin or 10IU oxytocin after cesarean delivery of the baby. The primary outcome is any additional uterotonic which may be administered by the blinded provider for perceived inadequate uterine tone with or without hemorrhage in the first 24hours after delivery. Secondary outcomes include operating time, perioperative blood loss, change in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, blood transfusion and reoperation for postpartum hemorrhage.
RESULTS: Additional uterotonic rates were 107/276 (38.8%) vs. 155/271 (57.2%) [RR 0.68 95% CI 0.57-0.81 p<0.001; NNTb 6 95% CI 3.8-9.8], mean operating time 45.9±16.0 vs. 44.5±13.1minutes p=0.26, mean blood loss 458±258 vs. 446±281ml p=0.6, severe postpartum hemorrhage (≥1000ml) rates 15/276 (5.4%) vs. 10/271 (3.7%) p=0.33 and blood transfusion rates 6/276 (2.2%) vs. 10/271 (3.7%); p=0.30 for carbetocin and oxytocin arms respectively. There was only one case of re-operation (oxytocin arm). In the cases that needed additional uterotonic 98% (257/262) was started intraoperatively and in 89% (234/262) the only additional uterotonic administered was an oxytocin infusion over 6hours.
CONCLUSION: Fewer women in the carbetocin arm needed additional uterotonics but perioperative blood loss, severe postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion and operating time were not different.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 76-year old male patient, presented to the department with a chief complaint of sensitivity in his upper right back tooth due to attrition. After assessing the pulp status, root canal therapy was planned for the tooth. During the procedure, it was noticed that the dental bur slipped out of the hand piece and the patient had accidentally ingested it. The patient was conscious and had no trouble while breathing at the time of ingestion of the bur although he had mild cough which lasted for a short duration. The dental procedure was aborted immediately and the patient was taken to the hospital for emergency care. The presence and location of the dental bur was confirmed using chest and abdominal x-rays and it was subsequently retrieved by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedure under general anaesthesia on the same day as a part of the emergency procedure. The analysis of this case reaffirms the importance of the use of physical barriers such as rubber dams and gauze screens as precautionary measures to prevent such incidents from occurring.
CONCLUSION: Ingestion of instruments are uncertain and hazardous complications to encounter during a dental procedure. The need for physical barrier like rubber dam is mandatory for all dental procedures. However, the dentist should be well trained to handle such medical emergencies and reassure the patient by taking them into confidence. Each incident encountered should be thoroughly documented to supply adequate guidance for treatment aspects. This would fulfil the professional responsibilities of the dentist/ clinician and may help avoid possible legal and ethical issues. This case report emphasizes on the need for the usage of physical barriers during dental procedures in order to avoid medical emergencies.