Clark, SL, Belfort, MA, Dildy, GA, et al. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:36.e1–36.e5; discussion 91–2Google Scholar

Liu, S, Liston, RM, Joseph, KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ 2007;176:455–60Google ScholarPubMed

Glantz, J. Obstetric variation, intervention, and outcomes: doing more but accomplishing less. Birth 2012;39:286–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gregory, KD, Jackson, S, Korst, L, Fridman, M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol 2012;29:7–18Google ScholarPubMed

Hamilton, BE, Hoyert, DL, Martin, JA, Strobino, DM, Guyer, B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010–2011. Pediatrics 2013;131:548–58Google Scholar

World Health Organisation. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7Google Scholar

Gibbons, L, Belizán, JM, Lauer, JA, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report 2010; Background Paper 30Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nelson, KB. Can we prevent cerebral palsy? N Engl J Med 2003;349:1765–9Google Scholar

Hankins, GD, Speer, M. Defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:628–36Google Scholar

NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Focus on: Caesarean section 2012. http://www.institute.nhs.ukGoogle Scholar

Guise, JM, Eden, K, Emeis, C, et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 191. AHRQ Publication No. 10–E003. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perinatal Registration The Netherlands 2013.www.perinatreg.nlGoogle Scholar

Barber, EL, Lundsberg, LS, Belanger, K, et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hendrix, NW, Chaucan, SP. Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing. Obstet Gynecol N Am 2005;32:273–86Google Scholar

ACOG. Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates: Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000Google Scholar

RCOG. Operative Vaginal Delivery. Green-top Guideline No. 26. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2011Google Scholar

Stephenson, PA, Bakoula, C, Hemminki, E, et al. Patterns of use of obstetrical interventions in 12 countries. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1993;7:45–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keriakos, R, Sugumar, S, Hilal, N. Instrumental vaginal delivery – back to basics. J Obstet Gynaecol 2013;33:781–86Google Scholar

O’Mahony, F, Settatree, R, Platt, C, Johanson, R. Review of singleton fetal and neonatal deaths associated with cranial trauma and cephalic delivery during a national intrapartum-related confidential enquiry. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:619–26Google ScholarPubMed

Wegner, EK, Bernstein, IM. Operative vaginal delivery. UpToDate. Accessed November 2014; www.uptodate.comGoogle Scholar

Main, DM, Main, EK, Moore, DH 2nd. The relationship between maternal age and uterine dysfunction as a continuous effect throughout reproductive life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:258–9Google Scholar

Liu, S, Rusen, ID, Joseph, KS, et al. Recent trends in caesarean delivery rates and indications for caesarean delivery in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004;26:735–42Google Scholar

Ecker, JL, Chen, KT, Cohen, AP, Riley, LE, Lieberman, ES. Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:883–7Google Scholar

Jensen, H, Agger, AO, Rasmussen, KL. The influence of prepregnancy body mass index on labor complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:799–802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Usha, Kiran TS, Hemmadi, S, Bethel, J, Evans, J. Outcome of pregnancy in a woman with an increased body mass index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:768–72Google Scholar

Cedergren, MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:219–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Declercq, E, Menacker, F, MacDorman, M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991–2002. Am J Public Health 2006;96:867–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Declercq, E, Menacker, F, MacDorman, M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991–2001: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J 2005;330:71–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heffner, LJ, Elkin, E, Fretts, RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:287–93Google Scholar

Stramrood, CA, Paarlberg, KM, Huis In ‘t Veld, EM, et al. Posttraumatic stress following childbirth in homelike- and hospital settings. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2011;32:88–97Google Scholar

Boorman, RJ. Childbirth and criteria for traumatic events. Midwifery 2014;30:255–61Google Scholar

Alcorn, KL, O’Donovan, A, Patrick, JC, Creedy, D, Devilly, GJ. A prospective longitudinal study of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from childbirth events. Psychol Med 2010;40:1849–59Google Scholar

Soderquist, J, Wijma, B, Thorbert, G, Wijma, K. Risk factors in pregnancy for post-traumatic stress and depression after childbirth. BJOG 2009;116:672–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

White, T, Matthey, S, Boyd, K, Barnett, B. Postnatal depression and post-traumatic stress after childbirth: Prevalence, course and co-occurrence. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2006;24:107–20Google Scholar

Ayers, S, Joseph, S, Kenzie-McHarg, K, Slade, P, Wijma, K. Post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth: current issues and recommendations for future research. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2008;29:240–50Google Scholar

Wijma, K, Soderquist, J, Wijma, B. Posttraumatic stress disorder after childbirth: a cross sectional study. J Anxiety Disord 1997;11:587–97Google Scholar

Ryding, EL, Wijma, K, Wijma, B. Psychological impact of emergency cesarean section in comparison with elective cesarean section, instrumental and normal vaginal delivery. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1998;19:135–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stramrood, CA, Wessel, I, Doornbos, B, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder following preeclampsia and PPROM: a prospective study with 15 months follow-up. Reprod Sci 2011;18:645–53Google Scholar

Soderquist, J, Wijma, B, Wijma, K. The longitudinal course of post-traumatic stress after childbirth. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2006;27:113–19Google Scholar

Parfitt, YM, Ayers, S. The effect of post-natal symptoms of post-traumatic stress and depression on the couple’s relationship and parent–baby bond. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2009;27:127–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rouhe, H, Salmela-Aro, K, Halmesmaki, E, Saisto, T. Fear of childbirth according to parity, gestational age, and obstetric history. BJOG 2009;116:67–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gottvall, K, Waldenstrom, U. Does a traumatic birth experience have an impact on future reproduction? BJOG 2002;109:254–60Google Scholar

Fuglenes, D, Aas, E, Botten, G, Oian, P, Kristiansen, IS. Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean? The influence of parity, delivery experiences, and fear. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:45–9Google Scholar

National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guideline. RCOG Press, 2004Google Scholar

Hall, MH, Bewley, S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999;354:776Google Scholar

Harper, MA, Byington, RP, Espeland, MA, et al. Pregnancy-related death and health care services. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:273Google Scholar

Shellhaas for the NICHD MFMU Network. The MFMU cesarean registry: Cesarean hysterectomy – its indications, morbidities, and mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:S123Google Scholar

Kastner, ES, Figueroa, R, Garry, D, et al. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: experience at a community teaching hospital. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:971Google Scholar

Knight, M, Kurinczuk, JJ, Spark, P, Brocklehurst, P. United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System Steering Committee. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:97–105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Myles, TD, Gooch, J, Santolaya, J. Obesity as an independent risk factor for infectious morbidity in patients who undergo cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:959Google ScholarPubMed

Marshall, NE, Fu, R, Guise, JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:262.e1–8Google Scholar

Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy. A prospective study in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124:187–92Google Scholar

Smith, GC, Pell, JP, Dobbie, R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003;362:1779–84Google Scholar

Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226–32Google Scholar

Solheim, KN, Esakoff, TF, Little, SE, et al. The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:1341–6Google Scholar

Green, R, Gardeil, F, Turner, MJ. Long-term effects of cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;176:254–5Google Scholar

Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:171–6Google Scholar

Kwee, A, Bots, ML, Visser, GH, Bruinse, HW. Uterine rupture and its complications in the Netherlands: a prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;128:257–61Google Scholar

Guise, JM, McDonagh, MS, Osterwell, P, et al. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with a previous cesarean section. Br Med J 2004;329:1–7Google Scholar

MacDorman, MF, Declercq, E, Menacker, F, Malloy, MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk,” United States, 1998–2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006;3:175–82Google Scholar

Fogelson, NS, Menard, MK, Hulsey, T, Ebeling, M. Neonatal impact of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term: A comment on patient choice cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1433–6Google Scholar

Levine, EM, Ghai, V, Barton, JJ, Strom, CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:439–42Google Scholar

Bowers, SK. Prevention of iatrogenic respiratory distress syndrome: elective repeat section and spontaneous delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;143:186–9Google Scholar

Doherty, EG, Eichenwald, EC. Cesarean delivery: emphasis on the neonate. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:332–41Google Scholar

Darmasseelane, K, Hyde, MJ, Santhakumaran, S, Gale, C, Modi, N. Mode of delivery and offspring body mass index, overweight and obesity in adult life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e87896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hyde, MJ, Mostyn, A, Modi, N, Kemp, PR. The health implications of birth by caesarean section. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2012;87:229–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Laubereau, B, Filipiak-Pittroff, B, von Berg, A, et al. Caesarean section and gastrointestinal symptoms, atopic dermatitis, and sensitisation during the first year of life. Arch Dis Child 2004;89:993–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ajslev, TA, Andersen, CS, Gamborg, M et al. Childhood overweight after establishment of the gut microbiota: the role of delivery mode, pre-pregnancy weight and early administration of antibiotics. Int J Obes 2011;35:522–9Google Scholar

Dominguez-Bello, MG, Costello, EK, Contreras, M et al. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;107:11971–5Google Scholar

Nue, J, Rushing, J. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: long term infant outcomes and the hygiene hypothesis. Clin Perinatol 2011;38:321–31Google Scholar

Tollånes, MC, Moster, D, Daltveit, AK, Irgens, LM. Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. J Pediatr 2008;153:112–16Google Scholar

Seeman, P, Weinshenker, D, Quirion, R, et al. Dopamine supersensitivity correlates with D2High states, implying many paths to psychosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:3513–18Google Scholar

Ventura, SJ, Martin, JA, Curtin, SC, Mathews, TJ, Park, MM. Births: Final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2000;48:1–10Google Scholar

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2003. www.hcup.ahrq.gov/Google Scholar

Henderson, J, McCandlish, R, Kumiega, L, Petrou, S. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:149–57Google Scholar

Murphy, DJ, Stirrat, GM, Heron, J; ALSPAC Study Team. The relationship between Cesarean section and sub-fertility in a population-based sample of 14 541 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1914–17Google Scholar

Mollison, J, Porter, M, Campbell, D, Bhattacharya, S. Primary mode of delivery and subsequent pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:1061–5Google Scholar

Wagner, M. Fish can’t see water: the need to humanize birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;75:25–37Google Scholar