• Actual questions about the choice of the method of delivery of women with cesarean section in history

Actual questions about the choice of the method of delivery of women with cesarean section in history

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2018.7(133):10–15; doi 10.15574/HW.2018.133.10
Nazarenko L. G.
Kharkiv medical Academy of postgraduate education

The medical and social significance of the problem of abdominal delivery is determined by its prevalence, its impact on the most important health indicators, parameters of maternal and perinatal mortality. The rate of Caesarean section (CS) is uncontrolled and steadily growing. This generates a new problem that is the birth of previously operated women, which in most cases are solved in one-sided way in the Ukrainian realities, in favor of an elective repeated CS. The present data is mainly provided by foreign authors on the most controversial aspects of the problem: the risk of primary CS, ways of controlling the overall frequency of CS, the frequency and possibilities of predicting the success of vaginal births.

Key words: cesarean delivery, frequency, causes, cesarean section, vaginal births.

REFERENCES

1. Domingues RMSM, Dias MAB, Nakamura-Pereira M et al. (2014). Processo de decisão pelo tipo de parto no Brasil: da preferência inicial das mulheres à via de Parto Final. Cad Saude Publica. 30: S101–S116. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00105113

2. Gibbons L, Belizán J, Lauer J et al. (2010). The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report: 30.

3. Orlova VS, Kalashnikova IV, Bulgakova EV, Voronova YuV. (2013). Abdominalnoe rodorazreshenie kak ccret-sotsialnaya problema sovremennogo akusherstva. Zhurnal akusherstva I zhenskih bolezney LXII; 4: 6–14.

4. Radzinskiy VE. (2011). Akusherskaya agressiya. M, Izd-vo zhurnala Status Praesens: 688.

5. Radzinskiy VE, Knyazev SA, Kostin IN. (2009). Akusherskiy risk. Maksimum informatsii – minimum opasnosti dlya materi I mladentsa. M, Eksmo: 288.

6. Bailit JL. (2010). Rates of labor induction without medical indication are overestimated when derived from birth certificate data. Am J Obstet. Gynecol. 203: 269–e1-3.

7. Little SE, Orav EJ, Robinson JN et al. (2016). The relationship between variations in cesarean delivery and regional health care use in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 214: 735.e1.– 8.

8. Budhwa T et al. (2010). Application of the Robson classification of cesarean section in focus: Robson group. A report by the child health network for the greater Toronto area. Toronto: 60.

9. Armstrong JC, Kozhimannil KB, McDermott P et al. (2016). Comparing variation in hospital rates of cesarean delivery among low-risk women using 3 different measures. FEBRUARY 2016 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 214; 2: 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.935; Pmid:26593970

10. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. (2014). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean deliver 210: 179–93.

11. Shields L, Klein C, Pelletreau B, Wiesner S. (2018). The SMFM cesarean birth rate can safely be reduced without increasing maternal or neonatal morbidity. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology: 541-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.500

12. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ et al. (2009). Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 151:252–63. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00007; Pmid:19687492

13. Burke N, Burke G, Breathnach F et al. (2016). Effect of induction of labor on cesarean delivery rates in nulliparous patients: results from the prospective multi-center Genesis Study. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology: 343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.691

14. Nicholson MJ, Stenson MH, Kellar L et al. (2009). Active management of risk in nulliparous pregnancy at term: association between a higher preventive labor induction rate and improved birth outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 200: 254.e1.– 254.

15. Melman S, Schoorel E, Vrouenraets F et al. (2013). Analysis of current Dutch practice on cesarean deliveries. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology: 327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.118

16. Rossi A Cristina, Vincenzo D’Addario. (2008). Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 199; 3: 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.025; Pmid:18511018

17. Tucker S, Kanaan C, Plevyak M et al. (2003). Are we trending back to “once a cesarean birth, always a cesarean birth”? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 189; 6: 139.

18. Polenov NI. (2008). Funktsionalnoe sostoyanie nizhnego segmenta matki u beremennyih zhenschin posle kesareva secheniya. Avtoref. Diss. Kand. Med. Nauk: 14.01.01. Akusherstvo I ginekologiya. 14.00.16. Patologicheskaya fiziologiya. SPb:28.

19. Khatib N, Emad M, Beloosesky R et al. (2015). New model, based on cervical length, predicts successful VBAC. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 212;1, Supplement: 195–S196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.418

20. Ruhstaller K, Hoffman MK, Sciscione A. (2012). Trial of labor after cesarean delivery: the impact of BMI. Am. J. Obste. Gynecol.: 295–296.

21. Tilden EL, Cheyney M, Guise J-M et al. (2017). Vaginal birth after cesarean: neonatal outcomes and United States birth setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 216: 403.e1.:1–8.

22. Perminova EI. (2010). Patomorfologicheskiy analiz rubtsov miometriya posle kesareva secheniya I konservativnoy miomektomii. Avtoref. Diss. Kand. Med. Nauk: 14.03.02. Patologicheskaya anatomiya; 14.01.01. Akusherstvo I ginekologiya. Nauchno-issledovatelskiy ccretee regionalnoy patologii I patomorfologii SO RAMN. Novosibirsk:25.

23. Worstell T, Kaimal A, Cahill A et al. (2015, Jan). Inducing a TOLAC: worth the risk? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Sup: 205–206.

24. Nazarenko LH, Nedorezova KM. (2016). Kryterii obiektyvizatsii prohnozu uspikhu vahinalnykh polohiv u zhinok z kesarevym roztynom v anamnezi. Akusherstvo. Hinekolohiia. Henetyka 3:5–10.

25. Schoorel E, Scheepers H, Hunen D et al. 2014. Probability of vaginal birth after caesarean: don’t ask the obstetrician. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology: 283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.608

26. Vdovychenko YuP, Hurzhenko Oiu. (2015). Alhorytm diahnostyky, profilaktyky ta likuvannia seksualnykh dysfunktsii u zhinok pislia kesareva roztynu. Zdorove zhenshchynу 10:70–72.

27. Horbunova OV. (2007). Patolohiia reproduktyvnoi systemy u zhinok z operovanoiu matkoiu. Avtoref. Dys. D-ra med. Nauk: 14.01.01. Akusherstvo ta ginekolohiia. K:31.

28. Poluianova OM. (2015). Optymizatsiia predhravidarnoi pidhotovky u zhinok z rubtsem na mattsi pislia kesareva roztynu. Dys. Kand. Med. Nauk: 14.01.01. Akusherstvo ta hinekolohiia. NMAPO. K:135.

29. Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. (2005). Abnormal placentation: Twenty-year analysis. Am. J. Obstet Gynecol. 192;5:1458–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.074; Pmid:15902137

30. Kaelin AA, Cali G, Monteagudo A et al. (2017). The clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” versus “in the niche”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 216:510.e.1-6.

31. Roberge S, Demers S, Berghella V et al. (2014). Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 211; 5: 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.014; Pmid:24912096

32. Macones GA. (2008). Clinical outcomes in VBAC attempts: what to say to patients? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.040.

33. Arikan I, Barut A, Harma M et al. (2012). Cesarean section with relative indications versus spontaneous vaginal delivery: short-term outcomes of maternofetal health. Clinical And Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology 39;3:288–292. Pmid:23157026

34. Metz T, Allshouse A, Grobman W. (2015). Validation of vaginal birth after cesarean prediction model in women with two prior cesarean deliveries. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 212;1:74.

35. Bujold E, Gauthier R. (2003). An innovative scoring system to counsel patients with a prior cesarean delivery: a step towards a safer and more successful trial of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 189;6, Supplement:S139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.10.284

36. Krasnopolskiy VI, Logutova LS, Buyanova SN. (2015). Reproduktivnyie problemyi operirovannoy matki. M:160.

37. Honcharuk NP, Kovyda NR. (2016). Diahnostyka nespromozhnosti rubtsia na mattsi pislia kesareva roztynu (Ohliad literatury). Zdorove zhenshchynы 7:171-173.

38. Mardy AH, Ananth CV, Grobman WA, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. (2016). Prediction model of vaginal birth after cesarean in the preterm period. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 214; 1:198–S199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.393

39. Miller E, Sakowicz A, Donelan E, Grobman W. (2015). Does midtrimester cervical length aid in predicting vaginal birth after cesarean? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 212;1:75–S76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.162

40. Khatib N, Emad M, Beloosesky R et al. (2015). New model, based on cervical length, predicts successful VBAC. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 212;1: Supplement: S195–196.

41. Elkousyi M, Marchiano D, Parry S et al. (2001). Mothers with macrosomic fetuses should not be discouraged from vaginal dirth after cesarean section. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 185;6. SMFM Abstracts: 209.

42. Erfani H, Davidson C, Gandhi M et al. (2018). TOLAC success in twin pregnancies in the United States (2013-2015). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 218; 1; Suppl: S148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.154

43. Silver RK, Gibbs RS. (1987). Predictors of vaginal delivery in patients with a previous cesarean section, who require oxytocin. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 156; 1: 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(87)90202-X

44. Son M, Roy A, Grobman WA. (2017). Attempted operative vaginal delivery versus repeat cesarean in the second stage in women undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 216;1:68–S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.984

45. Maggio L, Forbes J, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Davidson C. (2012, Jan). Association of Montevideo units with uterine rupture in women undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Suppl: 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.10.680

46. Gabidullina RI, Fatkullin IF, Kiyasov AP I dr. (2002). Kliniko-morfologicheskie paralleli v otsenke sostoyaniya rubtsa na matke posle kesareva secheniya. Kazanskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal 83;6:424–429.

47. Nezhdanov IG, Pavlov RV, Aksenenko VA, Telegina IV. (2012). Nekotoryie aspektyi razryiva matki po rubtsu posle operatsii kesareva secheniya. Meditsinskiy vestnik Severnogo Kavkaza 2:82–83.

48. Harper LM, Cahill AG, Boslaugh S et al. (2012). Association of induction of labor and uterine rupture in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean: a survival analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 206;1:51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.022; Pmid:22000899 PMCid:PMC3246100

49. Kurtser MA, Breslav Iyu, Evteev VB I dr. (2017). Sravnitelnaya harakteristika endovaskulyarnyih metodov ostanovki krovotecheniya pri placenta ccrete. Voprosyi ginekologii, akusherstva I perinatologii 5:17–24.