Is the epidemic of cesarean sections the result of more liberal indications?;Czy epidemia cięć cesarskich jest wykładnikiem liberalizacji wskazań?

Ginekologia Polska

Volumn 83, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 604-608

  Stasiełuk, Aleksandra ^a   Langowicz, Izabela ^a   Kosińska Kaczyńska, Katarzyna ^a   Pietrzak, Bronisława ^a   Wielgoś, Mirosław ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

Cesarean section; Fetal distress; Indications

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; FETUS DISTRESS; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; HUMAN; INFANT WELFARE; LABOR COMPLICATION; MATERNAL WELFARE; NEWBORN; POLAND; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREVALENCE; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

ADULT; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; FETAL DISTRESS; HUMANS; INFANT WELFARE; INFANT, NEWBORN; MATERNAL WELFARE; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; POLAND; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREVALENCE; WOMEN'S HEALTH; YOUNG ADULT;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84867616279     PISSN: 00170011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985, 2, 436-437.
2. Rekomendacje Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologicznego. Cie{ogonek}cie cesarskie. Ginekol Pol. 2008, 79, 378-384.
3. Troszyński M. Umieralność okołoporodowa wczesna (0-6) płodow i noworodkow: Polska 2009 oraz 1999-2009. Warszawa. Materiały Instytut Matki i Dziecka. 2010.
4. OECD. Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing 2011. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/health_glance-2011-en].
5. Betran A, Merialdi M, Lauer J, [et al.]. Rates of cesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007, 21, 98-113.
6. Fehmi A, Azizi I, Hoxha S, [et al.]. Mode of delivery and mortality among preterm newborns. Ginekol Pol. 2010, 81, 203-207.
7. Wilkinson A, Ahluwalia J, Cole A, [et al.]. Management of babies born extremely preterm at less than 26 weeks of gestation: a framework for clinical practice at the time of birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009, 94, F2-F5.
8. Choudhury A, Dawson A. Trends in indications for caesarean sections over 7 years in a Welsh district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009, 29, 714-717.
9. Truijllo-Hernandez B, Rios-Silva M, Huerta M, [et al.]. Frequency of, indication for and clinical epidemiological characteristics of fi rst time cesarean section, compared with repeated cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2002, 267, 27-32.
10. Marshall N, Fu R, Guise J. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011, 205, 262.e1-8.
11. Vadnais M, Sachs B. Maternal mortality with cesarean delivery: a literature review. Semin Perinatol. 2006, 30, 242-246.
12. Hanley M, Smulian J, Lake M, [et al.]. Analysis of repeat cesarean delivery indication: Implications of heterogeneity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996, 175, 883-888.
13. Cheng Y, Eden K, Marshall N, [et al.]. Delivery after prior cesarean: maternal morbidity and mortality. Clin Perinatol. 2011, 38, 297-309.
14. Stjernholm Y, Petersson K, Eneroth E. Changed indications for cesarean sections. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010, 89, 49-53.
15. Saha L, Chowdhury S. Study on primary cesarean section. Mymensingh Med J. 2011, 20, 292-297.
16. Fogelson N, Menard M, Hulsey T, Ebling M. Neonatal impact of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term: a comment on patient choice cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005, 192, 1433-1436.