Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:49:26.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 68 - Cesarean Section (Content last reviewed: 20th February 2020)

from Section 6 - Late Prenatal – Obstetric Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2017

By
Michael Robson  and
Thomas Bergholt
Edited by
David James ,
Philip Steer ,
Carl Weiner ,
Bernard Gonik  and
Stephen Robson
David James
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik
Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Get access

Summary

The delivery of a baby through the abdominal wall, whether by accident, traumatically, or postmortem, has a long history. Self-performed cesarean sections have also been described, as have cesarean sections performed by laypersons, most often in desperation as a result of prolonged labor.

Type
Chapter
Information
High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
 , pp. 1901 - 1926
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
First published in: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baskett, TF, Calder, AA. Caesarean section. In Baskett, TF, Calder, AA, Arulkamaran, S (eds), Munro Kerr’s Operative Obstetrics, 12th edn. London: Saunders, 2014, pp. 132–44.Google Scholar
McCulloch, P, Nagendran, M, Campbell, WB, et al. Strategies to reduce variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 2013; 382: 1130–9.Google Scholar
Spong, CY, Berghella, V, Wenstrom, KD, Mercer, BM, Saade, GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 1181–93.Google Scholar
Robson, MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15: 179–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, MS, Scudamore, IW, Walsh, SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 199–205.Google Scholar
Thaens, A, Bonnaerens, A, Martens, G, et al. Understanding rising caesarean section trends: relevance of inductions and prelabour obstetric interventions at term. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2011; 3: 286–91.Google Scholar
Robson, M, Hartigan, L, Murphy, M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27: 297–308.Google Scholar
Bottoms, SF, Rosen, MG, Sokol, RJ. The increase in the cesarean birth rate. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 559–63.Google Scholar
Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2: 436–7.Google Scholar
Cyr, RM. Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: commentary and historic perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 932–6.Google Scholar
Robson, M. The Ten Group Classification System (TGCS): a common starting point for more detailed analysis. BJOG 2015; 122: 701.Google Scholar
Bailit, JL. Measuring the quality of inpatient obstetrical care. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007; 62: 207–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. (WHO/RHR/15.02). Geneva: WHO, 2015.Google Scholar
Betran, AP, Torloni, MR, Zhang, JJ, Gülmezoglu, AM; WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016; 123: 667–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souza, JP, Betran, AP, Dumont, A, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016; 123: 427–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, M. A global reference for CS at health facilities? Yes, but there is work to do. BJOG 2015; 123: 437.Google Scholar
Torloni, MR, Betran, AP, Souza, JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PloS One 2011; 6: e14566.Google Scholar
Betran, AP, Vindevoghel, N, Souza, JP, Gulmezoglu, AM, Torloni, MR. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PloS One 2014; 9: e97769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001; 12: 23–39.Google Scholar
Robson, M, Murphy, M, Byrne, F. Quality assurance: the 10-Group Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131 (S1): S23–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Maternity Hospital. Annual Report 2013. Dublin: NMH, 2013. http://www.nmh.ie/_fileupload/Annual%20Reports/FB%20NMH%20AR%2013%20English%20Final.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Brennan, DJ, Robson, MS. Nulliparous term singleton vertex caesarean delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: e8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, DJ, Murphy, M, Robson, MS, O’Herlihy, C. The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 36 weeks of gestation: contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 273–9.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean Section. NICE Clinical Guideline CG132. London: NICE, 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132 (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Tully, L, Gates, S, Brocklehurst, P, McKenzie-McHarg, K, Ayers, S. Surgical techniques used during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002; 102: 120–6.Google Scholar
Dandolu, V, Raj, J, Harmanli, O, Lorico, A, Chatwani, AJ. Resident education regarding technical aspects of cesarean section. J Reprod Med 2006; 51: 49–54.Google Scholar
Demers, S, Roberge, S, Afiuni, YA, et al. Survey on uterine closure and other techniques for Caesarean section among Quebec’s obstetrician-gynaecologists. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35: 329–33.Google Scholar
Murphy, M, Butler, M, Coughlan, B, et al. Elevated amniotic fluid lactate predicts labor disorders and cesarean delivery in nulliparous women at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 673.e1–8.Google Scholar
Hodnett, ED, Gates, S, Hofmeyr, GJ, Sakala, C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (7): CD003766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodnett, ED. Caregiver support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; (1): CD000199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodnett, ED, Lowe, NK, Hannah, ME, et al. Effectiveness of nurses as providers of birth labor support in North American hospitals. JAMA 2002; 288: 1373–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilder, L, Costeloe, K, Thilaganathan, B. Prolonged pregnancy: evaluating gestation-specific risks of fetal and infant mortality. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 169–73.Google Scholar
Friedman, EA. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954; 68: 1568–75.Google Scholar
Albers, LL. The duration of labor in healthy women. J Perinatol 1999; 19: 114–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philpott, RH, Castle, WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. I. The alert line for detecting abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1972; 79: 592–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Philpott, RH, Castle, WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. II. The action line and treatment of abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1972; 79: 599–602.Google Scholar
World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet 1994; 343: 1399–404.Google Scholar
Lavender, T, Alfirevic, Z, Walkinshaw, S. Partogram action line study: a randomised trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 976–80.Google Scholar
Pattinson, RC, Howarth, GR, Mdluli, W, et al. Aggressive or expectant management of labour: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2003; 110: 457–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, HC, Paranjothy, S, Dowswell, T, Thomas, J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (9): CD004907.Google Scholar
Wei, S, Wo, BL, Qi, HP, et al. Early amniotomy and early oxytocin for prevention of, or therapy for, delay in first stage spontaneous labour compared with routine care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (8): CD006794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, AM, Kelly, J, Hollins, G, Lynch, PF. Ambulation in labour. BMJ 1978; 2: 591–3.Google Scholar
Bloom, SL, McIntire, DD, Kelly, MA, et al. Lack of effect of walking on labor and delivery. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 76–9.Google Scholar
Gupta, JK, Nikodem, VC. Woman’s position during second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD002006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlsson, G, Buchhave, P, Leandersson, U, et al. Warm tub bathing during labor: maternal and neonatal effects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80: 311–14.Google Scholar
Rush, J, Burlock, S, Lambert, K, et al. The effects of whirlpool baths in labor: a randomized, controlled trial. Birth 1996; 23: 136–43.Google Scholar
Halpern, SH, Leighton, BL, Ohlsson, A, Barrett, JF, Rice, A. Effect of epidural vs parenteral opioid analgesia on the progress of labor: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1998; 280: 2105–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A, Carr, D, Loyd, G, Cook, V, Spinnato, J. The influence of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 1527–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughnan, BA, Carli, F, Romney, M, Dore, CJ, Gordon, H. Randomized controlled comparison of epidural bupivacaine versus pethidine for analgesia in labour. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 715–19.Google Scholar
Lucas, DN, Yentis, SM, Kinsella, SM, et al. Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification. J R Soc Med 2000; 93: 346–50.Google Scholar
Ransom, SB, Fundaro, G, Dombrowski, MP. Cost-effectiveness of routine blood type and screen testing for cesarean section. J Reprod Med 1999; 44: 592–4.Google Scholar
Chua, SC, Joung, SJ, Aziz, R. Incidence and risk factors predicting blood transfusion in caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 490–3.Google Scholar
Wilmink, FA, Hukkelhoven, CW, Lunshof, S, et al. Neonatal outcome following elective cesarean section beyond 37 weeks of gestation: a 7-year retrospective analysis of a national registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 250.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, AK, Wisborg, K, Uldbjerg, N, Henriksen, TB. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ 2008; 336: 85–7.Google Scholar
Clark, SL, Miller, DD, Belfort, MA, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 156.e1–4.Google Scholar
Tita, AT, Landon, MB, Spong, CY, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 111–20.Google Scholar
Glavind, J, Kindberg, SF, Uldbjerg, N, et al. Elective caesarean section at 38 weeks versus 39 weeks: neonatal and maternal outcomes in a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2013; 120: 1123–32.Google Scholar
Rollins, M, Lucero, J. Overview of anesthetic considerations for cesarean delivery. Br Med Bull 2012; 101: 105–25.Google Scholar
Afolabi, BB, Lesi, FE. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (10): CD004350.Google Scholar
Chooi, C, Cox, JJ, Lumb, RS, et al. Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (8): CD002251. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub3.Google Scholar
Paranjothy, S, Griffiths, JD, Broughton, HK, et al. Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (2): CD004943.Google Scholar
Tanner, J, Norrie, P, Melen, K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (11): CD004122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004122.pub4.Google Scholar
Singata, M, Tranmer, J, Gyte, GM. Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (8): CD003930.Google Scholar
Jacob, S. Food deprivation in labour. RCM Midwives J 1998; 6 (Supplement).Google Scholar
Kubli, M, Scrutton, MJ, Seed, PT, O’Sullivan, G. An evaluation of isotonic “sport drinks” during labor. Anesth Analg 2002; 94: 404–8.Google Scholar
Haas, DM, Morgan, S, Contreras, K, Enders, S. Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (7): CD007892. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007892.pub6.Google Scholar
Abdel-Aleem, H, Aboelnasr, MF, Jayousi, TM, Habib, FA. Indwelling bladder catheterisation as part of intraoperative and postoperative care for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (4): CD010322.Google Scholar
Ghoreishi, J. Indwelling urinary catheters in cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 83: 267–70.Google Scholar
Kerr-Wilson, RH, McNally, S. Bladder drainage for caesarean section under epidural analgesia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 28–30.Google Scholar
Holmgren, G, Sjoholm, L, Stark, M. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 615–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathai, M, Hofmeyr, GJ, Mathai, NE. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (5): CD004453.Google Scholar
Wall, PD, Deucy, EE, Glantz, JC, Pressman, EK. Vertical skin incisions and wound complications in the obese parturient. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 952–6.Google Scholar
Thornburg, LL, Linder, MA, Durie, DE, et al. Risk factors for wound complications in morbidly obese women undergoing primary cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 1544–8.Google Scholar
Xu, LL, Chau, AM, Zuschmann, A. Blunt vs. sharp uterine expansion at lower segment cesarean section delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208: 62.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cromi, A, Ghezzi, F, Di Naro, E, Siesto, G, Loverro, G, Bolis, P. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 292.e1–6.Google Scholar
Berhan, Y, Berhan, A. A meta-analysis of reverse breech extraction to deliver a deeply impacted head during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124: 99–105.Google Scholar
Jeve, YB, Navti, OB, Konje, JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2016; 123: 337–45. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13593.Google Scholar
McDonald, SJ, Middleton, P, Dowswell, T, Morris, PS. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (7): CD004074.Google Scholar
Anorlu, RI, Maholwana, B, Hofmeyr, GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (3): CD004737.Google Scholar
Abalos, E, Addo, V, Brocklehurst, P, et al.;. CORONIS collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388 (10039): 62–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00204-X.Google Scholar
Walsh, CA, Walsh, SR. Extraabdominal vs intraabdominal uterine repair at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 625.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edi-Osagie, EC, Hopkins, RE, Ogbo, V, et al. Uterine exteriorisation at caesarean section: influence on maternal morbidity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 1070–8.Google Scholar
Bujold, E, Bujold, C, Hamilton, EF, Harel, F, Gauthier, RJ. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 1326–30.Google Scholar
Hesselman, S, Hogberg, U, Ekholm-Selling, K, Rassjo, EB, Jonsson, M. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single- compared with double-layer closure: a Swedish cohort study. BJOG 2014; 122: 1535–41.Google Scholar
Dodd, JM, Anderson, ER, Gates, S, Grivell, RM. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (7): CD004732.Google Scholar
CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group. The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007; 7: 24.Google Scholar
CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010; 117: 1366–76.Google Scholar
Bjorklund, K, Kimaro, M, Urassa, E, Lindmark, G. Introduction of the Misgav Ladach caesarean section at an African tertiary centre: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2000; 107: 209–16.Google Scholar
Wallin, G, Fall, O. Modified Joel–Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 221–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franchi, M, Ghezzi, F, Balestreri, D, et al. A randomized clinical trial of two surgical techniques for cesarean section. Am J Perinatol 1998; 15: 589–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bamigboye, AA, Hofmeyr, GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (8): CD000163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walfisch, A, Beloosesky, R, Shrim, A, Hallak, M. Adhesion prevention after cesarean delivery: evidence, and lack of it. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 446–52.Google Scholar
Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (4): CD004663.Google Scholar
Diener, MK, Voss, S, Jensen, K, Buchler, MW, Seiler, CM. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010; 251: 843–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aabakke, AJ, Krebs, L, Ladelund, S, Secher, NJ. Incidence of incisional hernia after cesarean delivery: a register-based cohort study. PloS One 2014; 9: e108829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chelmow, D, Rodriguez, EJ, Sabatini, MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 974–80.Google Scholar
Husslein, H, Gutschi, M, Leipold, H, et al. Suture closure versus non-closure of subcutaneous fat and cosmetic outcome after cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. PloS One 2014; 9: e114730.Google Scholar
Gates, S, Anderson, ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (12): CD004549.Google Scholar
Mackeen, AD, Devaraj, T, Baxter, JK. Cesarean skin closure preferences: a survey of obstetricians. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 26: 753–6.Google Scholar
Mackeen, AD, Berghella, V, Larsen, ML. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (11): CD003577.Google Scholar
Mackeen, AD, Khalifeh, A, Fleisher, J, et al. Suture compared with staple skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1169–75.Google Scholar
Mackeen, AD, Schuster, M, Berghella, V. Suture versus staples for skin closure after cesarean: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 621.e1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.12.020.Google Scholar
Aabakke, AJ, Krebs, L, Pipper, CB, Secher, NJ. Subcuticular suture compared with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 878–84.Google Scholar
Darj, E, Nordstrom, ML. The Misgav Ladach method for cesarean section compared to the Pfannenstiel method. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 37–41.Google Scholar
Abalos, E, Addo, V, Brocklehurst, P, et al.;. CORONIS Collaborative Group. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382 (9888): 234–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60441-9.Google Scholar
West, R, West, S, Simons, R, McGlennan, A. Impact of dose-finding studies on administration of oxytocin during caesarean section in the UK. Anaesthesia 2013; 68: 1021–5. doi: 10.1111/anae.12381.Google Scholar
Gungorduk, K, Yildirim, G, Asicioglu, O, et al. Efficacy of intravenous tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss after elective cesarean section: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28: 233–40.Google Scholar
Abdel-Aleem, H, Alhusaini, TK, Abdel-Aleem, MA, Menoufy, M, Gulmezoglu, AM. Effectiveness of tranexamic acid on blood loss in patients undergoing elective cesarean section: randomized clinical trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 26: 1705–9.Google Scholar
Simonazzi, G, Bisulli, M, Saccone, G, et al. Tranexamic acid for preventing postpartum blood loss after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016; 95: 28–37. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12798.Google Scholar
Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Carbetocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (2): CD005457. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005457.pub3.Google Scholar
Smaill, FM, Grivell, RM. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (10): CD007482.Google Scholar
Kenyon, SL, Taylor, DJ, Tarnow-Mordi, W. Broad-spectrum antibiotics for spontaneous preterm labour: the ORACLE II randomised trial. ORACLE Collaborative Group. Lancet 2001; 357: 989–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Kenyon, S, Pike, K, Jones, DR, et al. Childhood outcomes after prescription of antibiotics to pregnant women with spontaneous preterm labour: 7-year follow-up of the ORACLE II trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 1319–27.Google Scholar
Sun, J, Ding, M, Liu, J, et al. Prophylactic administration of cefazolin prior to skin incision versus antibiotics at cord clamping in preventing postcesarean infectious morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013; 75: 175–8.Google Scholar
Viney, R, Isaacs, C, Chelmow, D. Intra-abdominal irrigation at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 1106–11.Google Scholar
Virkus, RA, Løkkegaard, E, Lidegaard, Ø, et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in 1.3 million pregnancies: a nationwide prospective cohort. PloS One 2014; 9: e96495.Google Scholar
Abdul Sultan, A, West, J, Tata, LJ, et al. Risk of first venous thromboembolism in pregnant women in hospital: population based cohort study from England. BMJ 2013; 347: f6099.Google Scholar
Guimicheva, B, Czuprynska, J, Arya, R. The prevention of pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism. Br J Haematol 2015; 168: 163–74.Google Scholar
Bulkmans, N, Lyrenas, S, Hallberg, G, Niklasson, F. Umbilical cord blood sampling: a tool for delivery quality control? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 419–22.Google Scholar
Ong, BY, Cohen, MM, Palahniuk, RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section--effects on neonates. Anesth Analg 1989; 68: 270–5.Google Scholar
Hogston, P. Is a paediatrician required at caesarean section? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1987; 26: 91–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ever-Hadani, P, Seidman, DS, Manor, O, Harlap, S. Breast feeding in Israel: maternal factors associated with choice and duration. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994; 48: 281–5.Google Scholar
Bush, DJ, Lyons, G, MacDonald, R. Diclofenac for analgesia after caesarean section. Anaesthesia 1992; 47: 1075–7.Google Scholar
Mangesi, L, Hofmeyr, GJ. Early compared with delayed oral fluids and food after caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; (3): CD003516.Google Scholar
Brooten, D, Roncoli, M, Finkler, S, et al. A randomized trial of early hospital discharge and home follow-up of women having cesarean birth. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 832–8.Google Scholar
Villar, J, Carroli, G, Zavaleta, N, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1025.Google Scholar
Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1226–32.Google Scholar
Marshall, NE, Fu, R, Guise, JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: 262.e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobsson, M, Tapper, AM, Colmorn, LB, et al. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: results from the prospective Nordic Obstetric Surveillance Study (NOSS). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 745–54.Google Scholar
Gungorduk, K, Asicioglu, O, Celikkol, O, Sudolmus, S, Ark, C. Iatrogenic bladder injuries during caesarean delivery: a case control study. J Obstet Gynaecol 2010; 30: 667–70.Google Scholar
Conner, SN, Tuuli, MG, Longman, RE, et al. Impact of obesity on incision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 386.e1–6.Google Scholar
Leth, RA, Møller, JK, Thomsen, RW, Uldbjerg, N, Nørgaard, M. Risk of selected postpartum infections after cesarean section compared with vaginal birth: a five-year cohort study of 32,468 women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88: 976–83.Google Scholar
Neville, GR. Caesarean section rates: much ado about nothing or a marker of quality care? Curr Prog Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 2: 274–85.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×