The decision for cesarean birth

Journal for Nurse Practitioners

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 141-147

  Terhaar, Mary ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Clinical outcomes; Evidence based practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644839785     PISSN: 15554155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nurpra.2005.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Lurie S The changing motives of cesarean section: from the ancient world to the twenty-first century Arch Gynecol Obstet. 271 4 2005 281 285
2. National Library of Medicine. Available at: NLM.NIH.GOV/exhibition/ cesarean/cesarean_1.html. Cesarean Section a Brief H0istory. Accessed July 8, 2005.
3. Schindl M, Birner P, Reingrabner M, Joura EA, Husslein P, Langer M Elective cesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 82 2003 834 840
4. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review Obstet Gynecol Survey 59 8 2004 601 616
5. Lyndon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR Association between method of delivery and rehospitalization JAMA 283 2000 2411 2416
6. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD Birth: preliminary data for 2002 Natl Vital Stat Rep. 51 11 2003 4 5
7. Porreco RP, Thorp JA The cesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes and solutions Am J Obstet Gynecol. 175 2 1996 369 374
8. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D Planned Elective Cesarean Section Versus Planned Vaginal Birth for Women With a Previous Cesarean Birth The Cochrane Collaboration 2004 John Wiley & Sons Adelaide, Australia
9. Mawson AR Reducing cesarean section rates in managed care organizations Am J Managed Care 8 8 2002 730 740
10. World Health Organization Appropriate technology for birth Lancet 2 1985 436 437
11. Dobson R Cesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21% Br Med J. 323 2001 951
12. Health Canada Canadian Perinatal Health Report 2000 2000 Minister of Public Works and Government Services Ottawa, Canada
13. Belizan J, Althabe F, Barros F, Alexander S Rates and implications of cesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study Br Med J. 319 1999 1397 1402
14. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk MN Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 73 1 1997 1 4
15. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD Birth: preliminary data for 2002 Natl Vital Stat Rep. 51 11 2003 4 5
16. Cleary-Goldman J, Malone FD, Vidaver J for the FASTER Consortium. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome Obstet Gynecol. 105 5 part I 2005 983 990
17. Carroll CS Sr, Magann EF, Chauhan SP Vaginal birth after cesarean section versus elective repeat cesarean delivery: weight based outcomes Am J Obstet Gynecol. 188 2003 1516 1520
18. Chauhan SP, Megann EF, Carroll CS Mode of delivery for the morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section Am J Obstet Gynecol. 185 2001 349 354
19. Edwards RK, Harnsberger DS, Johnson IM Deciding on route of delivery for obese women with prior cesarean delivery Am J Obstet Gynecol. 189 2003 385 389
20. Joseph KS, Young DC, Dodds L Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol. 102 4 2003 791 800
21. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multi-center trial: Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group Lancet 356 2000 375 383
22. Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertso C Few women wish to be delivered by cesarean section Br J Obstet Gynecol 109 2002 618 623
23. Sjogren B Fear of childbirth and psychosomatic support: a follow-up of 72 women Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 77 1998 819 825
24. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Group The Sentinel National Cesarean Section Audit Report 2001 RCOG Press London, United Kingdom
25. Boulvain M, Fraser WD, Brisson-Carroll G, Faron G, Wollast E Trial of labor after cesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta analysis Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 104 1997 1385 1390
26. Guise JM, McDonagh M, Hashima J Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section (VBAC) 2003 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Washington, DC Evidence Report Technology Assessment No. 71
27. Stovall TG, Shaver DC, Solomon K, Anderson GD Trial of labor in previous cesarean section patients, excluding classical cesarean sections Obstet Gynecol. 70 5 1987 713 717
28. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incision Obstet Gynecol. 94 5 1999 735 740
29. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Park MM Births: final data for 2000 Natl Vital Stat Rep. 50 2002 1 101
30. Pruett KM, Kirshon B, Cotton DB, Poindexter AN Is a vaginal birth after two or more cesarean sections safe? Obstet Gynecol 72 1988 163 165
31. Holland JG, Dupre AR, Blake PG, Martin RW, Martin JN Jr Trial of labor after cesarean delivery: experience in non-university level II regional hospital setting Obstet Gynecol. 79 6 1992 936 939
32. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999 Am J Obstet Gynecol. :183 2000 1187 1197
33. Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, Ellwood D Prevalence and persistence of health problems after childbirth: associations with parity and method of birth Birth 29 2 2002 83 94
34. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial Am J Obstet Gynecol. 191 2004 917 927
35. Goer H The case against elective cesarean section J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 15 3 2001 23 38
36. Rortveit G, Dalveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section N Engl J Med. 348 10 2003 900 907
37. Notzon F International differences in the use of obstetric interventions JAMA :263 1990 3286 3291
38. Cosner KR, Dougherty MC, Bishop KR Dynamic characteristics of the circumvaginal muscles during pregnancy and the post-partum J Nurse Midwifery 36 4 1991 221 225
39. Gordon H, Logue M Perineal muscle function after childbirth Lancet 2 1985 123 125
40. US Public Health Service. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives: Full Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1991. Public Health Service Publication 91-50212.
41. Notzen FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P Cesarean delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication 1994 Am J Obstet Gynecol. 170 1994 495 504
42. Redman ME, Gonik B Cesarean delivery rates at the threshold of viability Am J Obstet Gynecol. 187 4 2002 873 876
43. FIGO Committee for Ethical Aspect of Human Reproduction and Women's Health Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 64 1999 317 322
44. AACOG Committee on Ethics Committee Opinion No. 289. Surgery and patient choice: the ethics of decision making Obstet Gynecol. 102 2003 1101 1106