PDA

View Full Version : Elective Caesars More Risky


Tracie
11-09-2006, 19:42
Link to Courier Mail article reporting on the results of new research......

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20366242-953,00.html
tickle
12-09-2006, 06:41
Very interesting article. Six million babies, you can't really argue with that! Thanks Tracie.:thumbsup:
xkwzit
12-09-2006, 15:37
I have just deleted one post. Can I just remind everyone that this information is shared in the interests of educating ppl about various risk factors. It is not for us to make judgments or cast aspersions over a woman's choice.

Cheers
MrsMiggins
12-09-2006, 15:47
And to save any potential feelings or thoughts of nastiness, can I just let people know who may not be aware that the term "Elective Caesarian Section" refers to non-emergency caesarians.

While I realise this article does relate to c/s where there is no medical necessity, I think it's important to point this out.

Mine was elective, but necessary. I did not choose to have a c/s, it was medically necessary (not to cast aspersions on those who do choose to give birth this way!)

I actually came across this same study elsewhere, but I can't recall where!

The numbers are definitely interesting!
MrsMiggins
12-09-2006, 16:33
Yep! I know! :yes: I just wanted to help save any unpleasantness! I know I didn't know exactly what "elective caesarian" meant before I had one!

As I said, it is a really interesting article though. I wonder what the stats would be in Australia? I know in the US they have a lot of different birthing methods & monitoring techniques than we have here.

I have heard & read a lot about how babies being birthed vaginally have the mucous naturally squeezed from their lungs & airways and how this contributes to lower rates of respitory complications in vaginally delivered babies as opposed to those delivered by c/s.

It's interesting though, as I expected my bub to have a lot of mucous having read all this stuff before she was born & she really didn't have much at all!
tickle
12-09-2006, 16:37
Sorry MrsMiggins, I didn't read you post properly, have edited.:o
SamanthaJane
12-09-2006, 16:38
After reading the article, i'm still unsure as to why its singling out elective caesars though ?

I mean... a caesar is a caesar whether its elective or not isnt it :confused:

I am quite tired tho... so that may explain why i am so confused :sleeping:
Goosie22
12-09-2006, 17:50
Explaining possible reasons for the results, Dr MacDorman said: "Labour is an important part of the birthing process because it gets infants ready to breathe air and function outside the womb."


This was in the article to explain the possible reason why? Its to do with hormons stimulating labour, which also get the baby ready to breath. Babies born from El-C/S (because of the lack of spontaneous Labour) have a greater risk of "wet lung" TTN (transient tachypnea).

HTH
SamanthaJane
12-09-2006, 18:21
Sorry, dont mean to hijack the thread... but i was just wondering... does this mean that if you have an elective c-section you dont go into "labour" as such... meaning you dont experience any contractions? :confused:
M O P
12-09-2006, 18:24
Sorry, dont mean to hijack the thread... but i was just wondering... does this mean that if you have an elective c-section you dont go into "labour" as such... meaning you dont experience any contractions? :confused:
elective means chosen, so you choose to have c/s, as opposed to emergency, being unplanned, c/s
usually scheduled before due date
M O P
12-09-2006, 18:35
Samantha Jane-

The research by scientists at the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention considered only caesareans where the woman was at a low risk from childbirth. The vaginal births it studied from 1998 to 2001 were also low risk.
I guess they are only looking at elective c/s so babies in emergencies and higher risk babies didn't skewiff the results. Does that make sense?
Goosie22
12-09-2006, 20:37
This (http://www.sarahjbuckley.com/articles/labour-hormones.htm) little story from Dr Sarah J Buckley is all about the hormones of birth and how they help you and your baby to get ready and cope with the labour, birth and after.:thumbsup:
SilverStarfish
12-09-2006, 22:03
I was just looking at that article.... and while that data does seem to indicate a slightly higher risk for non-emergency c-section babies, it is a pretty small risk.
1.77 births per 1000 vs. 0.62 per 1000. Just looking at it from a purely numercial viewpoint, that's only a 0.1% increase.

"Not medically necessary" is a bit of a grey area too. What one mother/doctor team considers not medically necessary could be a totally unacceptable risk another.

Just my thoughts...:detective:
xkwzit
12-09-2006, 22:25
OK, it's just my engineer within, but I've got to correct you Faeml - sorry :o

Those figures show that the risk is more than doubled. Yes it is still pretty low, but instead of a six in ten thousand chance of fatality (VB), you have a 17 in ten thousand chance (CS). Is it significant compared to other risks you take in life? That's a question for each woman to weigh up.

Cheers
SilverStarfish
12-09-2006, 22:47
Ahh, so it is... I stand corrected. I dropped a zero.

It's a risk, but what in pregnancy and parenthood isn't? I'm certain that if you did a study on neonate outcomes between women who had an intervention free birth and those who didn't, you'd find some sort of statistical risk in there too.

Each to their own :) I honestly still believe that it is every woman/couple/family's decision how they birth their babies - provided that they have taken all the facts - including studies like this one - into account.
SassyMummy
12-09-2006, 22:52
I heard about this (briefly) on the News last week, and decided not to post about it in the c-section thread because I thought that it might not be something mothers who WANT a c-section (for personal, not medical, reasons) want to hear. Instead, I made a tiny post about it in a VBAC thread (since VBAC-mums would prefer to avoid a c-section anyway).

I'm actually happy with this information...because I hope it will be used in order to help all women wanting VBACs actually ACHEIVE a VBAC. However small the difference is, it still IS a difference...

To answer your question Samantha-Jane, if you have an elective c-section, you're not already in labour. I had an "elective" (albeit completely unwanted) c-section because I FAILED to go into labour. Elective C-sections are "scheduled" events...you know the date and time you're going to go in for it.
SilverStarfish
12-09-2006, 22:57
That's right. Scheduled, but still possibly necessary. Though not in the scope of the article in the OP, in some cases it is medically important that the C-section happen BEFORE the onset of labour.

Elective means "not an emergency". It doesn't mean have to mean "Just because I wanted one" - which is what the word 'elective' sometimes sounds like.
Goosie22
13-09-2006, 07:37
Lead researcher Marian MacDorman added: "These findings should be of concern for clinicians and policy-makers who are observing the rapid growth in the number of primary caesareans to mothers without a medical indication."


I think this is an important message that sometimes women are not told about all the risks possibly so they are not made to feel guilty for requesting such surgery, and possibly the Dr sees the risk as mininmal and with holds information?