Literature DB >> 9647152

The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold.

C R Leitch1, J J Walker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reasons for the rise in caesarean section rate and note any change in indications.
DESIGN: A retrospective, descriptive study comparing the years 1962 and 1992.
SETTING: A large city centre teaching hospital.
RESULTS: There was an overall increase in the caesarean section rate from 6-8% in 1962 to 18.1% in 1992. No single cause contributed more than 30% towards this increase. The main indications in both years were similar: failure to progress (42.2% vs 36.7%) and fetal indications (18.1% vs 18.9%). The largest relative increases were in the malpresentation group (10.8% vs 16%) and previous caesarean section (4.5% vs 15.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there has been a lowering in the overall threshold concerning the decision to carry out a caesarean section rather than changes in obstetric management. Obstetricians and the women in their care have to decide whether the current balance between risk and benefit is acceptable or whether they wish to alter the underlying philosophy if any significant reduction is to be sustained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9647152     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10176.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol        ISSN: 0306-5456


  21 in total

1.  Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis.

Authors:  J S Bell; D M Campbell; W J Graham; G C Penney; M Ryan; M H Hall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-14

2.  Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002.

Authors:  Eugene Declercq; Fay Menacker; Marian Macdorman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Primary and Repeat Cesarean Deliveries: A Population-based Study in the United States, 1979-2010.

Authors:  Cande V Ananth; Alexander M Friedman; Katherine M Keyes; Jessica A Lavery; Ava Hamilton; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Comparison between amniotomy, oxytocin or both for augmentation of labor in prolonged latent phase: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Zohar Nachum; Gali Garmi; Yfat Kadan; Noah Zafran; Eliezer Shalev; Raed Salim
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2010-11-07       Impact factor: 5.211

5.  Obstetrical intervention and the singleton preterm birth rate in the United States from 1991-2006.

Authors:  Marian F MacDorman; Eugene Declercq; Jun Zhang
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Recovery after caesarean birth: a qualitative study of women's accounts in Victoria, Australia.

Authors:  Michelle A Kealy; Rhonda E Small; Pranee Liamputtong
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Fetal head circumference, operative delivery, and fetal outcomes: a multi-ethnic population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Andrew Mujugira; Alfred Osoti; Ruth Deya; Stephen E Hawes; Amanda I Phipps
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  The Ontario Mother and Infant Study (TOMIS) III: a multi-site cohort study of the impact of delivery method on health, service use, and costs of care in the first postpartum year.

Authors:  Wendy Sword; Susan Watt; Paul Krueger; Lehana Thabane; Christine Kurtz Landy; Dan Farine; Marilyn Swinton
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study.

Authors:  Hannah Grace Dahlen; Sally Tracy; Mark Tracy; Andrew Bisits; Chris Brown; Charlene Thornton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study.

Authors:  Kristjana Einarsdóttir; Fatima Haggar; Gavin Pereira; Helen Leonard; Nick de Klerk; Fiona J Stanley; Sarah Stock
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.