Abdominal delivery as a medical and social problem of contemporary obstetrics

Abstract

The frequency of cesarean section as the instrument of decrease in perinatal mortality, in many countries with the high and average level the income I surpassed reasonable limits. The systematized data of foreign authors concerning the most discussed aspects of the problem are submitted: the reasons of the global increase in the level of operational childbirth, consequences for the health of the mother and the newborn, and also ways and expediency of decrease in their level. Robson classification is widely used in international practice. It gives an opportunity to compare the indications for cesarean section in different countries and regions.

Keywords

cesarean delivery / frequency / causes / complications of cesarean section / Robson classification / repeat cesarean section

References

[1] Application of the Robson classification of cesarean sections in focus: Robson groups/Budhwa T. [et al.] // A report by the child health network for the greater Toronto area. — Toronto, 2010. — 60 р.

[2] Akram H., Bukhari A. A., Din A. U. Multiple caesarean sections — an association with increasing frequency of placenta praevia // Biomedica. — 2009 — Vol. 25. — P. 28–31.

[3] Allen V. M., Baskett T. F., O’Connell C. M. Contribution of select maternal groups to temporal trends in rates of caesarean section // JOGC. — 2010. — Vol. 32, N 7. — P. 633–641.

[4] Alternative strategy to decrease cesarean section: support by doulas during labor/Trueba G. [et al.] // J. Perinatal Education. — 2000. — Vol. 9, N 2. — P. 89–13.

[5] Ananth C. V., Vintzileos A. M. Trends in cesarean delivery for pregnancy and association with perinatal mortality // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2011. — Vol. 204, N 6. — P. 505–513.

[6] Bergholt T., Lim L. K., Jorgensen J. S. Maternal body mass index in the first trimester and risk of cesarean delivery in nulliparous women in spontaneous labor // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2007. — Vol. 196, N 2. — Р. 163–167.

[7] Brennan D. J., Robson M. C., Murphy M. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates for the 10— group classification identifies significant differences in spontaneous labor // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2009. — Vol. 201, N 3. — P. 308–316.

[8] Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America / Villar J. [et al.] // Lancet. — 2006. — Vol. 367. — Р. 1819–1829.

[9] Cesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Africa / Shah A. [et al.] // Int. Journal Gynecol. Obstet. — 2009. — Vol. 107. — P. 191–197.

[10] Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study / Althabe F. [et al.] // Birth. — 2006. — Vol. 33. — Р. 270–277.

[11] Cheng Y., Nakagawa S., Caughey A. Number of prior cesarean delivery and perinatal outcomes: more is worse? // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2009. — Vol. 200, suppl. — P. 214.

[12] Christilaw J. E. Cesarean section by choice: Constructing a reproductive rights framework for the debate // International J. Gynecol. Obstet. — 2006. — Vol. 94. — P. 262–268.

[13] Clark E. A. S., Silver R. M. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2011. — Vol. 205, N 6, suppl. — P. S2–10.

[14] Classification of caesarean sections in Canada: the modified Robson criteria / D. Farine // JOGC. — 2012. — Vol. 34, N 10. — Р. 976–979.

[15] Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States / Zhang J. [et al.] // Am. J. Obst. Gynecol. — October 2010. — Vol. 203, N 4. — P. 326–336.

[16] Daltveit A. K., Tollanes M. C., Pihlstrom H. Cesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancies // Obstet. Gynecol. — 2008. — Vol. 111, N 6. — P. 1327–1334.

[17] Denk C. E., Krusе L. K., Jain N. J. Surveillance of cesarean section deliveries, New Jersey 1999–2004 // Perinatal Care. — 2006. — Vol. 33, N 3. — Р. 203–209.

[18] Determinants of preference for elective caesarean section in Hong Kong Chinese pregnant women / Pang S. M. W. [et al.] // Hong Kong Med. Journal — 2007. — Vol. 13, N 2. — P. 100–105.

[19] Dunne C., Silva O. D., Schmidt G. Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks' gestation // JOGC. — 2009. — Vol. 31, N 12. — Р. 1124–1130.

[20] Ecker J. L., Frigoletto F. D. Cesarean delivery and the risk–benefit calculus // N. Engl. J. Med. — 2007. — Vol. 356, N 9. — P. 885–889.

[21] Epidemiology and trends for caesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: A population-based study / Stavrou E. P. [et al.] // BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. — 2011. — Vol. 11. — Р. 8.

[22] Giguere R. Social determinants of cesarean deliveries in Latin America: a case study of Brazil // Center for Global Initiatives. — 2007, April. — 47 р.

[23] Hamilton B. E., Martin J. A., Ventura S. J. Births: preliminary data for 2006 // National vital statistics reports. — 2007. — Vol. 56, N 7. — Р. 88.

[24] Hankins G. D., Clark S. M., Munn M. B. Cesarean section on request at 39 weeks: impact on shoulder dystocia, fetal trauma, neonatal encephalopathy, and intrauterine fetal demise // Semin. Perinatol. — 2006. — Vol. 30. — Р. 276–287.

[25] Hansen A. K., Wisborg K., Uldbjerg N. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study // BMJ. — 2008. — Vol. 336. — P. 85–87.

[26] Hong X. Why is the rate of cesarean section in urban China so high? Is the price transparency policy working? // J. Health Managementlocalhost. — 2008 — Vol. 10, N 1 — P. 25–47.

[27] Kealy M. A., Small R. E., Liamputtong P. Recovery after caesarean birth: a qualitative study of women’s accounts in Victoria, Australia // BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2010 URL: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471–2393/10/47/. (дата обращения 11.09.2013).

[28] Low J. Caesarean section — past and present // JOGC. — 2009. — Vol. 31, N 12 — Р. 1131–1136.

[29] МасDorman M. F., Menacker F., Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes // Clin. Perinatol. — 2008. — Vol. 35, N 2. — Р. 293–307.

[30] Malloy M. H. Impact of cesarean section on neonatal mortality rates among very preterm infants in the United States, 2000–2003 // Pediatrics. — 2008. — Vol. 122, N 2. — P. 285–292.

[31] Births: final data for 2007 / Martin J. A., Hamilton B. E., Sutton P. D. [et al.] // National vital statistics reports. — 2010. — Vol. 58, N 24. — Р. 1–86.

[32] Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study / Villar J. [et al.] // BMJ. — 2007. — Vol. 335. — P. 1025–1036.

[33] Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries / Silver R. M. [et al.] // Obstet. Gynecol. — 2006. — Vol. 107, N 6. — Р. 1226–1232.

[34] Menacker F., Declercq E., Macdorman M. F. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology // J. Seminars Perinatology. — 2006. — Vol. 30. — P. 235–241.

[35] Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–2008 / Lumbiganon P. [et al.] // Lancet. — 2010. — Vol. 375. — Р. 490–499.

[36] Neonatal outcomes after elective cesarean delivery/Kamath B. D. [et al.] // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2009. — Vol. 113, N 6. — P. 1231–1238.

[37] Nisenblat V., Barak S., Griness O. B. Maternal complications associated with multiple cesarean deliveries // Obstet. Gynecol. — 2006. — Vol. 108, N 1. — Р. 21–26.

[38] Patel R. M., Jain L. Delivery after previous cesarean: Short-term perinatal outcomes // Semin. Perinatol. — 2010. — Vol. 34. N 4. — Р. 272–280.

[39] Potter J., Hopkins K., Faundes A. Women’s autonomy and scheduled cesarean sections in Brazil: a cautionary tale // Birth. — 2008. — Vol. 35. — Р. 33–40.

[40] Ramachandrappa A. Elective cesarean section: it’s impact on neonatal respiratory // Clin. Perinatol. — 2008. — Vol. 35, N 2. — P. 373–394.

[41] Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates / Betran A. P. [et al.] // Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. — 2007. — Vol. 21. — Р. 98–113.

[42] Ravindran J. Rising caesarean section rates in public hospitals in Malaysia 2006 // Med. J. Malaysia. — 2008. — Vol. 63, N 5. — Р. 434–435.

[43] Rise in cesarean section rate over a 30-year period in a public hospital in Tehran / Badakhsh M. H. [et al.] // Arch. Iran. Med. — 2012. — Vol. 15, N 1. — P. 4–7.

[44] Risk factors for surgical site infection after low transverse cesarean section / Olsen M. A. [et al.] // Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. — 2008. — Vol. 29, N 6. — P. 477–484.

[45] Robson M. S. Classification of caesarean sections // Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. — 2001. — Vol. 12, N 1. — Р. 23–29.

[46] Ronsmans C., Holtz S., Stanton C. Socioeconomic differentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis // Lancet. — 2006. — Vol. 368. — Р. 1516–1523.

[47] Rosenberg T. J., Garbers S., Lipkind H. Maternal obesity and diabetes as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences among 4 racial/ethnic groups // Am. J. Public. Health. — 2005. — Vol. 95, N 9. — Р. 1545–1551.

[48] Rossi A. C., Addario V. D. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2008. — Vol. 199 — P. 224–231.

[49] Rozen G., Ugoni A. M., Sheehan P. M. A new perspective on VBAC: A retrospective cohort study // Women and Birth. — 2011. — Vol. 24. — P. 3–9.

[50] The effect of delaying childbirth on primary cesarean section rates / Smith G. C. S. [et al.] // PLoS Medicine. — 2008. — Vol. 5, N 7. — Р. 1123–1132.

[51] 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 / Gibbons L. [et al.]. — Geneva, 2010. — 30 р.

[52] The rising trend in caesarean section rates: should we and can we reduce it? / Goonewardene M. [et al.] // Sri Lanka J. Obstet. Gynaec. — 2012. — Vol. 34. — Р. 11–18.

[53] Using a caesarean section classification system based on characteristics of the population as a way of monitoring obstetric practice / Costa R. M. L. [et al.] // Reproductive Health. — 2010. — Vol. 7. — P. 13–21.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Orlova V.S., Kalashnikova I.V., Bulgakova E.V., Voronova Y.V.