Mothering Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by navessa
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050610/...ection_baby_dc

Just thought other women would like to see this.
Interesting, but it doesnt correspond to other studies that have shown that maternal fetal outcomes are better with scheduled cesareans vs those who have a TOL first. I think it would also be a better to know why those women elected to have csections and the gestational ages of those pregnancies -- which could have played a role in the findings of the study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,578 Posts
So, if I am reading this correctly, the decision to try for a VBAC, even if it is unsuccessful (so a trial of labor) helps prevent certain conditions that result in a transfer to a neonatal unit for baby? Very interesting. Four times more likely seems pretty great!

Perhaps it is that the trial of labor (in addition to maybe providing the baby with hormones) allow that the cesarean birth is not scheduled too early, thus lowering the risk of preterm birth...

Thanks! I can't wait to read the full study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by onlyboys
So, if I am reading this correctly, the decision to try for a VBAC, even if it is unsuccessful (so a trial of labor) helps prevent certain conditions that result in a transfer to a neonatal unit for baby? Very interesting. Four times more likely seems pretty great!

The thing is, other studies, done in the past few years say differently. (like maternal risks are higher, as in death, infection, nicks in the bladder or intestines) Its a question of what are you going believe? The ones that favor what a particular person wants to suit their arguement. As I said in my pp, I would like to know the specifics of why they had csections and the gestational ages of those pregnancies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,329 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
The thing is, other studies, done in the past few years say differently. (like maternal risks are higher, as in death, infection, nicks in the bladder or intestines) Its a question of what are you going believe? The ones that favor what a particular person wants to suit their arguement. As I said in my pp, I would like to know the specifics of why they had csections and the gestational ages of those pregnancies.
Agreed that gestational age could be a factor in why the TOL babies did better -- the babies were much more likely to be fully "cooked". But therein lies one of the problems of scheduled C's -- the notion that the baby must be taken at 37, 38, 39 weeks. Rarely do you hear of a repeat C being at 40 weeks. Rarely are women allowed to go into labor on their own and then have the C-section.

And OnTheFence, please don't feel that I am attacking you personally. I know that you must have repeat C-sections and that there are legitimate reasons that exist for people to have them.
I'm just making generalizations about scheduled sections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,578 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
The thing is, other studies, done in the past few years say differently. (like maternal risks are higher, as in death, infection, nicks in the bladder or intestines) Its a question of what are you going believe? The ones that favor what a particular person wants to suit their arguement. As I said in my pp, I would like to know the specifics of why they had csections and the gestational ages of those pregnancies.
Yes, we must all wade through all of the well-meaning studies and reach our own conclusions. Many of my own conclusions can be "disproven" with studies, as I'm sure can many of your own. In my opinion, science and studies can only make you feel *so* safe, from there, we must make the leap to make choices that may be questioned by others not in our moccasins...

Like I said, I'd love to see the study and see who they were looking at specifically...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by reader
Agreed that gestational age could be a factor in why the TOL babies did better -- the babies were much more likely to be fully "cooked". But therein lies one of the problems of scheduled C's -- the notion that the baby must be taken at 37, 38, 39 weeks. Rarely do you hear of a repeat C being at 40 weeks. Rarely are women allowed to go into labor on their own and then have the C-section.

And OnTheFence, please don't feel that I am attacking you personally. I know that you must have repeat C-sections and that there are legitimate reasons that exist for people to have them.
I'm just making generalizations about scheduled sections.
I don't feel that way at all. I just want people to make informed decisions about their health with correct information. There is conflicting studies about this issue, and for those of us who have to have csections, I think that is pretty important.

If I am not mistaken, the ACOG recommends that elective repeat csections not be done BEFORE 39 weeks unless there is a direct medical reason to have it before then. I know that when I had my last child, that my doctor had to make all the notes as to why I was having my csection at 38 weeks and had to also include in her report my US dating the pregnancy. I am not sure if that is an issue this time, but I will ask at my next appointment.
I know that many OBs disregard the 39 week rule, like my SILs SOB, even though I have recommended to her to wait. He says she is too great of a rupture risk (not true, she is a great candidate for VBAC, but the practice he is in is against them) and wants her to have her csection nearly 3 weeks early.
:
I am in no way of saying ERC without labor shouldn't take place, I just think there should be more definitive answers for those of us who elect to do repeats (or have no choice in the matter) I think its well documented that a Vaginal birth is safer for both mom and baby than a csection -- and I am not trying to argue that at all.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top