Økt forekomst av keisersnitt - årsaker og konsekvenser

Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening

Volumn 129, Issue 13, 2009, Pages 1329-1331

  Tollånes, Mette Christophersen ^a,b  

^a HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt ^*  (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY MASS; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MATERNAL AGE; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS;

BODY MASS INDEX; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MATERNAL AGE; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 67650100343     PISSN: 00292001     EISSN: 08077096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.08.0453     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. 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: 270-7.
2. WHO. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2: 436-7.
3. Medisinsk fødselsregister. http://mfr-nesstar.uib.no/mfr (2.4.2009).
4. Yeh J, Shelton JA. Increasing prepregnancy body mass index: analysis of trends and contributing variables. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1994-8.
5. Tandberg A, Bjorge T, Bordahl PE et al. Increasing twinning rates in Norway, 1967-2004: the influence of maternal age and assisted reproductive technology (ART). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 833-9.
6. Montan S. Increased risk in the elderly parturient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19: 110-2.
7. Clausen T, Øyen N, Henriksen T. Pregnancy complications by overweight and residential area. A prospective study of an urban Norwegian cohort. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 526-33.
8. Thomson F, Shanbhag S, Templeton A et al. Obstetric outcome in women with subfertility. BJOG 2005; 112: 632-7.
9. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3: CD006066.
10. Ecker JL, Frigoletto FD jr. Cesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 885-8.
11. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375-83.
12. Haheim LL, Albrechtsen S, Berge LN et al. Breech birth at term: vaginal delivery or elective cesarean section? A systematic review of the literature by a Norwegian review team. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 126-30.
13. Young D. «Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request»: was the NIH conference based on a faulty premise? Birth 2006; 33: 171-4.
14. Weaver JJ, Statham H, Richards M. Are there «unnecessary» cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth 2007; 34: 32-41.
15. Gamble J, Creedy DK, McCourt C et al. A critique of the literature on women's request for cesarean section. Birth 2007; 34: 331-40.
16. Angeja AC, Washington AE, Vargas JE et al. Chilean women's preferences regarding mode of delivery: which do they prefer and why? BJOG 2006; 113: 1253-8.
17. Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen IS. Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 48.e1-8.
18. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M et al. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 2006; 113: 647-56.
19. Savage W. The rising caesarean section rate: a loss of obstetric skill? J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27: 339-46.
20. Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH et al. Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 541-8.
21. Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999; 354: 776.
22. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1025.
23. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with lowrisk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007; 176: 455-60.
24. Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM. Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 907-12.
25. Oral E, Elter K. The impact of cesarean birth on subsequent fertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19: 238-43.
26. Hemminki E, Shelley J, Gissler M. Mode of delivery and problems in subsequent births: a registerbased study from Finland. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 169-77.
27. Kennare R, Tucker G, Heard A et al. Risks of adverse outcomes in the next birth after a first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 270-6.
28. Daltveit AK, Tollanes MC, Pihlstrom H et al. Cesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 1327-34.
29. Gray R, Quigley MA, Hockley C et al. Caesarean delivery and risk of stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study in an English population. BJOG 2007; 114: 264-70.
30. Wood SL, Chen S, Ross S et al. The risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies following caesarean section in the first pregnancy. BJOG 2008; 115: 726-31.
31. Clement S. Psychological aspects of caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15: 109-26.
32. Wang A, Guess M, Connell K et al. Fecal incontinence: a review of prevalence and obstetric risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006; 17: 253-60.
33. Press JZ, Klein MC, Kaczorowski J et al. Does cesarean section reduce postpartum urinary incontinence? A systematic review. Birth 2007; 34: 228-37.
34. Nygaard I. Urinary incontinence: is cesarean delivery protective? Semin Perinatol 2006; 30: 267-71.
35. MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F et al. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with «no indicated risk,» United States, 1998-2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006; 33: 175-82.
36. MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F et al. Neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to low-risk women: application of an «intention-to-treat» model. Birth 2008; 35: 3-8.
37. Kolås T, Saugstad O, Daltveit A et al. Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: comparison of newborn infant outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1538-43.
38. Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N et al. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ 2008; 336: 85-7.
39. Smith JF, Hernandez C, Wax JR. Fetal laceration injury at cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 344-6.
40. Eggesbø M, Botten G, Stigum H et al. Is delivery by cesarean section a risk factor for food allergy? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003; 112: 420-6.
41. Salam MT, Margolis HG, McConnell R et al. Mode of delivery is associated with asthma and allergy occurrences in children. Ann Epidemiol 2006; 16: 341-6.
42. Tollanes MC, Moster D, Daltveit AK et al. Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. J Pediatr 2008; 153: 112-6.
43. McVea KL, Turner PD, Peppler DK. The role of breastfeeding in sudden infant death syndrome. J Hum Lact 2000; 16: 13-20.
44. Leung AK, Sauve RS. Breast is best for babies. J Natl Med Assoc 2005; 97: 1010-9.
45. Clark SL, Hankins GD. Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy - fact and fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 628-33.
46. Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Farrell SA et al. Economic implications of method of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 192-7.