Variation in repeat caesarean section complication rates among 3 hospitals in northern Jordan

Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 610-618

  Amarin, Z O ^a   Alchalabi, H A ^a   Khader, Y S ^b   Gharaibeh, A A ^b   Shwayat, R M ^c  

^a KING ABDULLAH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Jordan)

^b JORDAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Jordan)

^c Prince Rashid Hospital   (Jordan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL INJURY; ADULT; ARTICLE; BLADDER INJURY; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; FENESTRATION; FETUS DISTRESS; FEVER; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; INTESTINE INJURY; JORDAN; LABOR COMPLICATION; MACROSOMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALPRESENTATION; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; PLACENTA PREVIA; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REOPERATION; SOLUTIO PLACENTAE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT INDICATION; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; WOUND INFECTION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, MILITARY; HOSPITALS, PUBLIC; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; JORDAN; LOGISTIC MODELS; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PATIENT SELECTION; PLACENTA PREVIA; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE; PREGNANCY; PUERPERAL DISORDERS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; UTERINE RUPTURE;

EID: 33847688094     PISSN: 10203397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Hager RM et al. Complications of caesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2004, 190:428-34.
2. Loverro G et al. Maternal complications associated with caesarean section. Journal of perinatal medicine, 2001, 29:322-6.
3. Pinette MG et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean rates are declining rapidly in the rural state of Maine. Journal of maternal - fetal & neonatal medicine, 2004, 16:37-43.
4. Ventura SJ et al. Births: final data for 1998. National vital statistics reports, 2000, 48:1-100.
5. Hanley ML et al. Analysis of repeat caesarean section delivery indications: Implications of heterogeneity. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1996, 175:883-8.
6. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2002. National vital statistics reports, 2003, 52:1-113.
7. Hacker N, Moore J G, eds. Essentials of obstetrics and gynecology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1998.
8. Garcia FA et al. Effect of academic affiliation and obstetric volume on clinical outcome and cost of childbirth. Obstetrics and gynecology, 2001, 97:567-76.
9. Aron DC et al. Impact of risk-adjusting caesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998, 279:1968-72.
10. Gregory KD et al. Caesarean deliveries for Medicaid patients: a comparison in public and private hospitals in Los Angeles County. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1999, 180:1177-84.
11. Guillemette J, Fraser WD. Differences between obstetricians in caesarean section rates and management of labour. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 1992, 99:105-8.
12. Takayama T et al. Risks associated with caesarean section in women with placenta previa. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 1997, 23:375-9.
13. Abu-Heija A, Zayed F. Primary and repeat caesarean sections: comparison of indications. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 1998, 18:432-4.
14. Zaki ZM at al. Risk factors and morbidity in patients with placenta previa accreta compared to placenta previa non-accreta. Acta obstetricia at gynecologica Scandinavica, 1998, 77:391-4.
15. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. British medical journal, 2001, 322:1089-94.
16. Burns LR, Geller SE, Wholey DR. The effect of physician factors on the caesarean section decision. Medical care, 1995, 33:365-82.
17. Kuhn EM et al. The relationship of hospital ownership and teaching status to 30- and 180-day adjusted mortality rates. Medical care, 1994, 32:1098-108.
18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2002. National vital statistics reports, 2003, 17:1-113.
19. Simoes E et al. Association between method of delivery, puerperal complication rate and postpartum hysterectomy. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2005, 272:43-7.
20. Chama CM, El-Nafaty AU, Idrisa A. Caesarean morbidity and mortality at Maiduguri, Nigeria. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2000, 20:45-8.
21. Gillum BS, Graves EJ, Wood E. National Hospital Discharge Survey. Vital and health statistics. Series 13, 1998, (133): i-v, 1-51.
22. Bailit JL, Love TE, Mercer B. Rising cesarean rates: are patients sicker? American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2004, 191:800-3.
23. Macones GA et al. Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option? American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2005, 192:1223-8.
24. Durnwald C, Mercer B. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: predicting success, risks of failure. Journal of maternal-fetal, and neonatal medicine, 2004, 15:388-93.
25. Hendler I, Bujold E. Effect of prior vaginal delivery or prior vaginal birth after cesarean delivery on obstetric outcomes in women undergoing trial of labor. Obstetrics and gynecology, 2004, 104:273-7.
26. Wax JR et al. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstetrical & gynecological survey, 2004, 59:601-16.
27. Zelop CM et al. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2002, 186:1104-5.
28. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Should we allow a trial of labor after a previous cesarean for dystocia in the second stage of labor Obstetrics and gynecology, 2002, 99:520-1.
29. Elkousy MA et al. The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2003, 188:824-30.
30. Glantz JC. Caesarean delivery risk adjustments for regional interhospital comparisons. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1999, 181:1425-31.
31. Richman VV. Lack of local reflection of national changes in caesarean delivery rates: the Canadian experience. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1999, 180:393-5.