Maternal‐choice caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in low‐risk primigravid women | Zendy

Robson Stephen J. | Zendy; de Costa Caroline | Zendy; Woods Cindy | Zendy; Ding Pauline | Zendy; Rane Ajay | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Premium

Maternal‐choice caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in low‐risk primigravid women

Author(s) -

Robson Stephen J.,

de Costa Caroline,

Woods Cindy,

Ding Pauline,

Rane Ajay

Publication year - 2018

Publication title -

australian and new zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.734

H-Index - 65

eISSN - 1479-828X

pISSN - 0004-8666

DOI - 10.1111/ajo.12766

Subject(s) - caesarean section , obstetrics , medicine , pregnancy , cohort study , vaginal birth , prospective cohort study , cohort , gynecology , surgery , genetics , pathology , biology

Rising rates of caesarean section ( CS ) have been attributed, in part, to maternal‐choice CS ( MCCS ). There are few published data regarding maternal and perinatal risks comparing MCCS with planned vaginal birth ( VB ) in uncomplicated first pregnancies to inform choice. We report the results of a pragmatic patient‐preference cohort study of private patients in Australia: 64 women planning MCCS and 113 women planning VB . There were few differences in outcome between the two groups. The study highlighted the well‐recognised difficulties in undertaking prospective research into MCCS .

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research