Does discussion of possible scar rupture influence preferred mode of delivery after a caesarean section?
- 1 May 2005
- journal article
- other
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Vol. 25 (4) , 338-341
- https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610500119697
Abstract
Using retrospective and prospective analyses of antenatal records, it was found that by 2003, discussions about the options for delivery after one lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) were almost always documented in antenatal notes, compared with only rare entries in 1993; specific mention of the risks of scar rupture were made in just under 50% in 2003. There was a considerable reduction in the proportion of women whose preference was to labour in 2003 compared with 1993 and also in the number who ultimately delivered vaginally. There was, however, no evidence that those women with whom possible scar rupture had been discussed were discouraged from attempting vaginal delivery. These data suggest that, contrary to expectations, increasing patients' involvement in their management in this situation does not result in fewer caesarean sections.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Indications for caesarean section in a consultant obstetric unit over three decadesJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2003
- Risk of Uterine Rupture during Labor among Women with a Prior Cesarean DeliveryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2000
- Delivery after previous cesarean: a risk evaluationPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1999
- Comparison of a Trial of Labor with an Elective Second Cesarean SectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1996
- Mode of delivery after one caesarean section: audit of current practice in a health region.BMJ, 1991