Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:51:05.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 10 - Cesarean Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2018

Shad Deering
Affiliation:
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Maryland
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

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

ACOG (2009). Induction of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin #107, August 2009, reaffirmed 2016.Google Scholar
ACOG (2010). Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin #115. Obstet Gynecol 116: 450–63.Google Scholar
ACOG (2011). Use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin #120. Obstet Gynecol 117: 1472–83.Google Scholar
ACOG (2016a). Gynecologic care for women and adolescents with human immunodeficiency virus. ACOG Practice Bulletin #167. Obstet Gynecol 128: e89110.Google Scholar
ACOG (2016b). Fetal macrosomia. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 173. Obstet Gynecol 128: e195209.Google Scholar
ACOG (2017a). Intrapartum management of intraamniotic infection. ACOG Committee Opinion #712. Obstet Gynecol 130: e95101.Google Scholar
ACOG (2017b). Delayed umbilical cord clamping after birth. ACOG Committee Opinion #684. Obstet Gynecol 129: e510.Google Scholar
ACOG (2017c). Obstetric analgesia and anesthesia. ACOG Practice Bulletin #177. Obstet Gynecol 129: e7389.Google Scholar
Alexander, JM, Levno, KJ, Hauth, J, et al. (2006). Fetal injury associated with cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 108: 885–90.Google Scholar
Berghella, V (2017). Cesarean delivery: preoperative planning and patient preparation. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/cesarean-delivery-preoperative-planning-and-patient-preparation (accessed May 2018).Google Scholar
Berghella, V, Baxter, JK, Chauhan, SP (2005). Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193: 1607–17.Google Scholar
Boyle, JG, Gabbe, SG (1996). T and J vertical extensions in low transverse cesarean births. Obstet Gynecol 87: 238–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buresch, AM, Arsdale, AV, Ferzli, M, et al. (2017). Comparison of subcuticular suture type for skin closure after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 130: 521–6.Google Scholar
Caissutti, C, Saccone, G, Zullo, F, et al. (2017). Vaginal cleansing before cesearan delivery. Obstet Gynecol 130: 527–38.Google Scholar
Chaim, W, Bashiri, A, Bar-David, J, Shoham-Vardi, I, Mazor, M (2000). Prevalence and clinical significance of postpartum endometritis and wound infection. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 8: 7782.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF, Carroll, CS, et al. (2001). Mode of delivery for morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185: 349–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, FG, Leveno, KJ, Bloom, SL, et al. (2014). Williams Obstetrics, 24th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Curtin, SC (1997). Rates of cesarean birth after vaginal birth after previous cesarean. Monthly Vital Stat Rep 45 (11 Suppl. 3).Google Scholar
Dahlke, JD, Medez-Figueroa, H, Rouse, DJ, et al. (2013). Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209: 294306.Google Scholar
Dildy, GA, Paine, AR, George, NC, Velasco, C (2004). Estimating blood loss: can teaching significantly improve visual estimation? Obstet Gynecol 104: 601–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawande, AA, Studdert, DM, Orav, EF, Brennan, TA, Zinner, MJ (2003). Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. N Engl J Med 348: 229–35.Google Scholar
Grobman, WA, Peaceman, AM, Socol, ML (2000). Cost-effectiveness of elective cesarean delivery after one prior low transverse cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 95: 745–51.Google Scholar
Hammad, IA, Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF, Abuhamad, AZ (2014). Peripartum complications with cesarean delivery: a review of Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network publications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27: 463–74.Google Scholar
Hawkins, JL, Chang, J, Palmer, SK, Gibbs, CP, Callaghan, WM (2011). Anesthesia-related maternal mortality in the United States: 1979–2002. Obstet Gynecol 117: 6974.Google Scholar
Hendrix, SL, Schimp, V, Martin, J, et al. (2000). The legendary superior strength of the Pfannensteil incision: a myth? Am J Obstet Gynecol 182: 1446–51.Google Scholar
Kapustian, V, Anteby, EY, Gdalevich, M, et al. (2012). Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206: 56.e14.Google Scholar
Lyell, DJ, Caughey, AB, Hu, E, et al. (2012). Rectus muscle and visceral peritoneum closure at cesarean delivery and intraabdominal adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206: 515.e15.Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJ, Driscoll, AK, Mathews, TJ (2017). Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep 66 (1).Google ScholarPubMed
Patterson, LS, O’Connell, CM, Baskett, TF (2002). Maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with classic and inverted T cesarean incisions. Obstet Gynecol 100: 633–7.Google Scholar
Shipp, TD, Zelop, CM, Repke, JT, Cohen, A, Lieberman, E (2001). Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 97: 175–7.Google Scholar
Simpson, EL, Lawrenson, RA, Nightingale, AL, Farmer, RD (2001). Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and the puerperium: incidence and additional risk factors from a London perinatal database. BJOG 108: 5660.Google Scholar
Tita, A, Szychowski, JM, Boggess, K, et al.; C/SOAP Trial Consortium (2016). Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 375: 1231–41.Google Scholar
Wiener, JJ, Westwood, J (2002). Fetal lacerations at caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol 22: 23–4.Google Scholar
Zaphiratos, V, George, RB, Boyd, JC, Habib, AS (2015). Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair for Cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 62: 1209–20.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
×