interesting about c sections and netural births

[Nowhere]

I just found this when i searched for info on the mortality rate of c sec and Vaginal deliveries

i found it interesting thought some others may do as well,i hope I didnt know how to do a link so i just cut and pasted it


Studies of vaginal, cesarean deliveries are a wash: trials often reach opposing results and have failed to compare elective C-section vs. planned vaginal birth


OB/GYN News (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD), July 15, 2006 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_14_41) by Jeff Evans (http://findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Jeff+Evans%22)


.query_homeNavHead{margin-top:10px;font-weight:bold;padding:0px 2px 0px 4px;}.query_homeNavLt, .queryHidehomeNavLt{border-top:0px;margin-top:0px;padding:3px 10px 0px 5px;}.query_homeNavLt div, .queryHidehomeNavLt div{padding:0px;}#fa_artWidFrame {width:207px;background-color:#EBF3F4;float:right;margin:0 0 5px 5px;}#fa_contentqueryDiv{padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;border-left:#CCCCCC solid 1px;border-right:#CCCCCC solid 1px;}*html #fa_contentqueryDiv{margin-top:-6px;margin-bottom:-3px;}.fa_artWidTop {background:url(/i/us/fa_art_top.gif) no-repeat top center;height:10px;}.fa_artWidBot {background:url(/i/us/fa_art_bot.gif) no-repeat bottom center;height:10px;}PRAGUE -- Neither elective cesarean section nor planned vaginal birth has yet been convincingly shown to provide the lower rate of perinatal and maternal complications in studies.
Most trials have not been randomized, have often reached opposing results, and have not compared elective C-section against planned vaginal birth, stymieing clinicians' ability to conclude which may offer the least amount of risk to the newborn and mother, Dr. Ola Didrik Saugstad said at the 20th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine.
Retrospective comparisons of elective repeat C-sections and trial of labor (prior to a repeat C-section) in term infants have alternately suggested that elective repeat C-section may increase an infant's risk of respiratory problems, hyperbilirubinemia, and a longer length of stay in the hospital (Pediatrics 1997;100:348-53), yet also confer a reduced risk of sepsis and an Apgar score of less than 6 at 1 minute.
Another study found no difference between the two delivery strategies in overall perinatal or maternal morbidity or mortality (N. Engl. J. Med. 1996;335:689-95), said Dr. Saugstad of the department of pediatric research at the Rikshospitalet University Hospital, Oslo.
Advertisement


Dr. Saugstad and his colleagues have conducted a prospective study comparing 17,828 planned vaginal deliveries and 825 elective C-sections that occurred during January through June 1999 in Norway. There was no difference between the two groups in neonatal mortality or the percentage of infants with an Apgar score of less than 7 at 1 minute or less than 4 at 5 minutes. But significantly more infants who were delivered with a planned C-section were transferred to the neonatal ICU (18%) than were babies born with a planned vaginal delivery (9%). Babies delivered by a planned C-section also had significantly higher rates of pulmonary disorders, hypoglycemia, and anemia. Vaginally born infants were delivered at an older mean gestational age than C-section infants (39.4 weeks vs. 38.4 weeks) in the study, which is in press for the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
In studies involving small or extremely-low-birth-weight infants, comparisons of elective versus selective C-section, C-section with labor versus C-section without labor, and vaginal delivery versus C-section have generally shown no significant differences in perinatal or maternal outcomes. But these studies have mostly been retrospective and have often compared infants of dissimilar gestational age and birth weight, Dr. Saugstad said.
A Cochrane review of six studies involving 122 women found no significant differences between elective and selective C-section on perinatal and maternal outcomes, citing that there was not enough evidence to evaluate the policy of elective C-section for small babies (Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2001;2:CD000078).
In a retrospective cohort study, C-section with labor was associated with significantly higher rates of grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18-22 months of age. But newborns who were delivered by C-section without labor had a significantly older gestational age than those who were delivered by C-section with labor. Correction for this and other risk factors made the difference in complications nonsignificant (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003;189:501-6).
In a smaller retrospective study of extremely-low-birth-weight infants with a gestational age of less than 26 weeks at birth, significantly more neonates born vaginally survived than (21 of 27) than did those born by C-section (9 of 21).
Vaginally born infants tended to have lower rates of mechanical intervention, surfactant treatment, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis. But infants who were delivered by C-section had significantly lower birth weight, umbilical artery pH, and rectal temperature than vaginally delivered babies (Am. J. Perinatol. 2003;20:181-8).
Results from the multicenter, randomized Term Breech Trial showed that vaginally born infants had significantly greater mortality (5%) at up to 6 weeks of follow-up than those delivered by C-section (1.6%) (Lancet 2000;356:1375-83). But there was no difference in either maternal (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004;191:917-27) or neonatal outcomes (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004;191:864-71) after 2 years of follow-up, Dr. Saugstad said.
BY JEFF EVANS
Senior Writer
COPYRIGHT 2006 International Medical News Group
COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group

[Nowhere]

It makes sense to me there are studies to proove evrything but then another to oppose it, i find ir interesting that this one actulay isnt bagging either side just putting across the point that studies are not always 100 percent accurate

[the_queen]

That is interesting, thanks :)

I thought it particularly interesting that very premmie babies are much better off being birthed vaginally, than by caesarian.

[Nowhere]

In a smaller retrospective study of extremely-low-birth-weight infants with a gestational age of less than 26 weeks at birth, significantly more neonates born vaginally survived than (21 of 27) than did those born by C-section (9 of 21).
Vaginally born infants tended to have lower rates of mechanical intervention, surfactant treatment, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, or sepsis. But infants who were delivered by C-section had significantly lower birth weight, umbilical artery pH, and rectal temperature than vaginally delivered babies (Am. J. Perinatol. 2003;20:181-8).

Yes i noticed that too queen but if you look at it in respect with the other infomaion such as the oart i just highlightes about the lower birth rate ECT that could have also contributed to the higher motality rate and C sec or Vaginal birth doesnt change birth weight KWIM

i think that is what this study is trying to show that the 2 have cant be compared ccurately becasuse ther are always contributing factors

[Nowhere]

i mustened have put an interesting title on here OH well i found it informative

[our little treasures]

I think it isn't the heading but more to do with we have been here done this over and over again! It is a bit boring after a while. The truth is we don't know who funded this research. I found it interesting that they done this research with heaps of vb and only a small number of cs, that cannot be a good start to the research anyway.

As someone mentioned there is always another research to show that this one is wrong.

Oh and I did find the percentage of neonatal icu rates a bit alarming considering these were of such a smaller number of cs against a big number of vb's. I ahd both mine in scn and I wouldn't want mine to ever be in NCU!!

[becca74]

I think we all know that deep down all studies are just individual fish bowls which you actually cannot compare - but the thing is this: knObs are going to pull carefully selected studies out of their butts to try and prove their point. if we are armed with other studies, it kinda neutralises their ammunition against us, iykwim.

Information is power!

[Nowhere]

[quote=our little treasures;1476015]I think it isn't the heading but more to do with we have been here done this over and over again! It is a bit boring after a while. The truth is we don't know who funded this research. I found it interesting that they done this research with heaps of vb and only a small number of cs, that cannot be a good start to the research anyway.
quote]
Thats the reason that i put it on here it was not to *** fuel to the firs so to speak to the debate, i came up in anohte thread as to weather or not elec c sec and vaginal bithrs have been compared with no other factors involved and that is what this study is showing that the two cant really be compared exactly cause of the other factors KWIM

[BlueGin]

Thanks for posting that study, I was wondering and asked in another thread (maybe the one you're referring to) what the stats were, and can see now the difficulty in comparing them.

[MrsMiggins]

This thread is being closed for cleaning & may be re-opened later at the moderators discretion.

[MrsMiggins]

I have re-opened this thread to discuss the original topic posted.

Please keep your replies to this thread relevant.

Thank you.