Literature DB >> 10725495

Lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean.

D S Gifford1, S C Morton, M Fiske, J Keesey, E Keeler, K L Kahn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean delivery and to compare published diagnostic criteria with the labor characteristics of women with this diagnosis.
METHODS: We reviewed medical records and did a postpartum telephone survey to collect data from 733 women who delivered full-term, nonbreech infants by unplanned cesarean between March 1993 and February 1994. These were a subset of 2447 births sampled at delivery from 30 hospitals in Los Angeles County and Iowa. We measured the proportion of unplanned cesareans done for lack of progress in labor, the cervical dilatation at the time of cesarean, length of the second stage, and slope of the active phase among the women. We estimated the proportion of these cesareans that conformed to the ACOG criteria for the diagnosis of lack of progress.
RESULTS: Lack of progress was a reason for 68% of unplanned, vertex cesareans. At least 16% of the subjects who had cesareans for lack of progress were in the latent phase of labor according to ACOG criteria. The second stage was not prolonged in 36% of the women who delivered at 10 cm.
CONCLUSION: Lack of progress in labor is a dominant reason for cesarean delivery. Many cesareans are done during the latent phase of labor, and in the second stage of labor when it is not prolonged. These practices do not conform to published diagnostic criteria for lack of progress.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10725495     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00575-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  32 in total

1.  [Differences in the likelihood of caesareans, associated with dependency on hospitals, the volume of cases and the obstetric risk].

Authors:  A Sarría-Santamera; E T López-Madurga
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2003-10-15       Impact factor: 1.137

2.  Adopting birth philosophies to guide successful birth practices and outcomes.

Authors:  M L Moore
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2001

3.  Partographic analysis of spontaneous labour at term in primigravida.

Authors:  Muralidhar Lakshmidevi; K V Malini; Vishma H Shetty
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2012-08-17

4.  Quality Improvement Initiatives Lead to Reduction in Nulliparous Term Singleton Vertex Cesarean Delivery Rate.

Authors:  Mary A Vadnais; Michele R Hacker; Neel T Shah; JoAnn Jordan; Anna M Modest; Molly Siegel; Toni H Golen
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2016-11-15

5.  Physiologic partograph to improve birth safety and outcomes among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset.

Authors:  Jeremy L Neal; Nancy K Lowe
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 1.538

6.  Do longer postpartum stays reduce newborn readmissions? Analysis using instrumental variables.

Authors:  J D Malkin; M S Broder; E Keeler
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Length of stay and readmission among late preterm infants: an instrumental variable approach.

Authors:  Neera Goyal; José R Zubizarreta; Dylan S Small; Scott A Lorch
Journal:  Hosp Pediatr       Date:  2013-01

8.  Reducing Length of Labor and Cesarean Surgery Rate Using a Peanut Ball for Women Laboring With an Epidural.

Authors:  Christina Marie Tussey; Emily Botsios; Richard D Gerkin; Lesly A Kelly; Juana Gamez; Jennifer Mensik
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2015

9.  Characterization of the myometrial transcriptome in women with an arrest of dilatation during labor.

Authors:  Piya Chaemsaithong; Ichchha Madan; Roberto Romero; Nandor Gabor Than; Adi L Tarca; Sorin Draghici; Gaurav Bhatti; Lami Yeo; Moshe Mazor; Chong Jai Kim; Sonia S Hassan; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa
Journal:  J Perinat Med       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 1.901

10.  Outcomes of nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset admitted to hospitals in preactive versus active labor.

Authors:  Jeremy L Neal; Jane M Lamp; Jacalyn S Buck; Nancy K Lowe; Shannon L Gillespie; Sharon L Ryan
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 2.388

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.