Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T18:17:10.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Caesarean Deliveries

Indications, Techniques and Complications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

By
Gerard H. A. Visser
Edited by
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Best Practice in Labour and Delivery , pp. 120 - 127
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Story, L, Paterson-Brown, S. Cesarean deliveries: indications, techniques and complications. In Warren, R, Arulkumaran, S (eds), Best Practice in Labour and Delivery (pp. 104–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
RCOG, RCM, NICE. Caesarean Section. London: RCOG Press; 2011.Google Scholar
Brennan, DJ, Robson, MC, Murphy, M, O'Herlihy, C. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201: 308.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. WHO/RHR/15.02. 2015. www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/cs-statement/en.Google Scholar
Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicenter trial. Lancet. 2000;356: 1375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietberg, CCT, Elferink-Stinkens, PM, Visser, GHA. The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in the Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112: 205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutte, JM, de Boer, K, Briët, JW, et al. Moedersterfte in Nederland: het topje van de ijsberg. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;118: 89–91. (In Dutch)Google Scholar
Barrett, JF, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369: 1295–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briozzo, L, Martinez, A, Nozar, M, et al. Tocolysis and delayed delivery versus emergency delivery in cases of non-reassuring fetal status during labor. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2007;33: 266–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Heus, R, Mulder, EJ, Derks, JB, et al. A prospective randomized trial of acute tocolysis in term labour with atosiban or ritodrine. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139(2): 139–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visser, GHA. Women are designed to deliver vaginally and not by Cesarean Section; an obstetrician's view. Neonatology. 2015;107: 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres-De-Campos, D, Cruz, J, Medeiros-Borges, C, Costa-Santos, C, Vicente, L. Lowered national cesarean section rates after a concerted action. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94: 391–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darj, E, Nordström, ML. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78: 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathai, M, Hofmeyr, GJ, Mathai, NE. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;5: CD004453.Google Scholar
Gizzo, S, Andrisani, A, Noventa, M, et al. Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(2): e0114190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Carbetocin for preventing post-partum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2: CD005457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, S, Chaillet, N, Boutin, A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115: 5–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberge, S, Demers, S, Berghella, V, et al. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211: 453–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hesselman, S, Hogberg, U, Ekholm-Selling, K, Råssjö, EB, Jonsson, M. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single- compared with double-layer closure: a Swedish cohort study. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 122(11): 1535–41. doi: 10.1111/1471–0528.13015.Google Scholar
Mackeen, AD, Schuster, M, Berghella, V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212: e1–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aabakke, AJ, Krebs, L, Pipper, CB, Secher, NJ. Subcuticular suture compared with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4): 878–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anorlu, RI, Maholwana, B, Hofmeyr, GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;16(3): CD004737.Google Scholar
Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M, Gülmezoglu, AM, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health. Lancet. 2010;375: 490–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CEMACH. Saving Mothers’ Lives. London: CEMACH; 2007.Google Scholar
Jolly, J, Walker, J, Bhara, K. Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106: 227–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, GC, Pell, JP, Dobbie, R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet. 2003;362: 1779–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Renzo, GC, Giardina, I, Rosati, A, et al. GC maternal risk factors for preterm birth: a country-based population analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159: 342–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107: 1226–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: a prospective study in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;124(2): 187–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tita, AT, Landon, MB, Spong, CY, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360: 111–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilmink, FA, Hukkelhoven, CW, Lunshof, S, et al. Neonatal outcome following elective cesarean section beyond 37 weeks of gestation: a 7-year retrospective study of a national registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202: e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACOG. Committee opinion no. 394: cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110: 1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stutchfield, P, Whitaker, R, Russell, I. Antenatal betamethasone and incidence of neonatal respiratory distress after elective caesarean section: pragmatic randomised trial. BMJ. 2005;331(7518): 662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, MR, Sayed Ahmed, WA, Mohammed, TY. Antenatal steroids at 37 weeks, does it reduce neonatal respiratory morbidity? A randomized trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;22: 1486–90.Google Scholar
Cho, CE, Norman, M. Cesarean section and development of the immune system in offspring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(4): 249–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×