Current caesarean delivery rates and indications in a major public hospital in northern Greece

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 142-146

  Dinas, Konstantinos ^a,b   Mavromatidis, Georgios ^b   Dovas, Dimitrios ^b   Giannoulis, Charalambos ^b   Tantanasis, Theocharis ^b   Loufopoulos, Aristoteles ^b   Tzafettas, John ^b  

^a Hippokration Hospital ^*  (Greece)

^b ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

Caesarean delivery rate; Caesarean section; Greece; Teaching hospital

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; FETUS HEART RATE; GREECE; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HOSPITAL;

EID: 41149105311     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: 1479828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00839.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Caesarean section on the rise. Lancet 2000 356 : 1697.
2. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: An ecological study. Birth 2006 33 : 270 277.
3. Dobson R. Caesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21%. BMJ 2001 323 : 951.
4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD et al. Births: Final data for 2004. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2006 55 : 1 101.
5. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D et al. and for the WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health research group: Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: The 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006 367 : 1819 1829.
6. Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S. Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001 15 : 1 15.
7. Francome C, Savage W. Caesarean section in Britain and the United States-12% or 24% is either the right rate? Soc Sci Med 1993 37 : 1199 1218.
8. Joffe M, Chapple J, Paterson C et al. What is the optimal caesarean section rate? An outcome based study on the existing variation. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994 48 : 406 411.
9. WHO. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985 2 : 436 437.
10. Li T, Rhoads GG, Smulian J et al. Physician cesarean delivery rates and risk-adjusted perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003 101 : 1204 1212.
11. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS et al. for the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007 176 : 455 460.
12. Hemminki E, Merilainen J. Long-term effects of cesarean sections: Ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 174 : 1569 1574.
13. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR et al. First-birth cesarean and placental abruption or previa at second birth. Obstet Gynecol 2001 97 : 765 769.
14. Hemminki E, Shelley J, Gissler M. Mode of delivery and problems in subsequent births: A register-based study from Finland. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005 193 : 169 177.
15. Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis G et al. Cesarean section rates and indications in Greece: Data from a 24-year period in a teaching hospital. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2004 31 : 289 292.
16. Skalkidis Y, Petridou E, Papathoma E et al. Are operative delivery procedures in Greece socially conditioned? Int J Quality Health Care 1996 8 : 159 165.
17. Mossialos E, Allin S, Karras K et al. An investigation of Caesarean sections in three Greek hospitals. The impact of financial incentives and convenience. Eur J Public Health 2005 15 : 288 295.
18. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 (Conference Edition in Two Volumes). Washington, DC : January 2000.
19. Feinmann J. How to limit cesareans on demand - Too NICE to push? Lancet 2002 359 : 774.
20. Lagrew DC, Adashek JA. Lowering the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: Comparison of individual physicians' rates, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998 178 : 1207 1214.
21. Poma PA. Effects of obstetrician characteristics on cesarean delivery rates: A community hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999 180 : 1364 1372.
22. Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P et al. Caesarean delivery in 1980s: International comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994 170 : 495 504.
23. Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA et al. The risks of lowering the cesarean delivery rate. N Engl J Med 1999 340 : 54 57.
24. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr. et al. Comparison of a trial of labour with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996 335 : 689 695.
25. Flamm BL, Goings JR, Liu Y et al. Elective repeat caesarean section versus trial of labour: A prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol 1994 83 : 927 932.
26. 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 1989 183 : 1187 1197.
27. Kolas T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003 188 : 864 870.
28. Florica M, Stephansson O, Nordstrom L. Indications associated with increased cesarean section rates in a Swedish hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006 92 : 181 185.
29. Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H et al. Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: A Swedish randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2001 358 : 534 538.