I was *forced* to have a repeat c-section with my fourth child, even though my c-section was with my 1st child, and I had had 2 successful vaginal deliveries because no doctor or hospital would *agree* to do a VBAC. Wonder if this *new* information will change anything?<br><br><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6713694/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6713694/</a>
*new* information shows VBAC not so bad after all
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>DaryLLL</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">But seriously, how many of those VBACs had induced or augmented labors, thereby increasing their risk of ruptures?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
A partial clue:<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Landon and his colleagues also discovered that the risk of uterine rupture increased to 1.1 percent from 0.7 percent when the drug oxytocin was used to induce labor.</td>
</tr></table></div>
From a version of the article at: <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&ncid=594&e=3&u=/nm/20041214/hl_nm/health_birth_dc" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ealth_birth_dc</a> (note their title: "Risk Seen in Vaginal Birth After Caesarean -Study" <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/eyesroll.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="roll"> )
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>DaryLLL</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">But seriously, how many of those VBACs had induced or augmented labors, thereby increasing their risk of ruptures?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
A partial clue:<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Landon and his colleagues also discovered that the risk of uterine rupture increased to 1.1 percent from 0.7 percent when the drug oxytocin was used to induce labor.</td>
</tr></table></div>
From a version of the article at: <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&ncid=594&e=3&u=/nm/20041214/hl_nm/health_birth_dc" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ealth_birth_dc</a> (note their title: "Risk Seen in Vaginal Birth After Caesarean -Study" <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/eyesroll.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="roll"> )
I think that MsNbC article is a bait and switch toned article.<br><br>
They do this all the time. The research shows what we all know, that VBAC is better for mother and baby, and so they report that...<br><br>
"The lead researcher said the chief risks — a torn uterus in the mother and brain damage in her newborn — are so unlikely that this study may boost the slumping rate of attempted natural births after C-sections. “I think it will certainly open up the dialogue once again,” said Dr. Mark Landon of Ohio State University."<br><br>
And then the next few paragraphs really up the emotion factor by talking about all the terrible things that can happen during VBAC, and they finish on a negative tone.<br><br>
I think it is good however that Mark Landon has acknowledged that for the past few years it has become conventional wisdom once again that we do repeat C-sections. ACOG has been very pro section and a few years ago came out with some damning evidence about VBAC that really changed the tone nationwide.<br><br>
I know for me, the biggest hurdle during my VBAC birth was emotional, overcoming the fear that I would have another section.<br><br>
I have since had three vaginal births, and it has been very empowering to not have to have another cesarean.<br><br>
Jenny
They do this all the time. The research shows what we all know, that VBAC is better for mother and baby, and so they report that...<br><br>
"The lead researcher said the chief risks — a torn uterus in the mother and brain damage in her newborn — are so unlikely that this study may boost the slumping rate of attempted natural births after C-sections. “I think it will certainly open up the dialogue once again,” said Dr. Mark Landon of Ohio State University."<br><br>
And then the next few paragraphs really up the emotion factor by talking about all the terrible things that can happen during VBAC, and they finish on a negative tone.<br><br>
I think it is good however that Mark Landon has acknowledged that for the past few years it has become conventional wisdom once again that we do repeat C-sections. ACOG has been very pro section and a few years ago came out with some damning evidence about VBAC that really changed the tone nationwide.<br><br>
I know for me, the biggest hurdle during my VBAC birth was emotional, overcoming the fear that I would have another section.<br><br>
I have since had three vaginal births, and it has been very empowering to not have to have another cesarean.<br><br>
Jenny
From what I've read, most uterine ruptures occur in first time labors.<br><br>
On second thought, maybe it's just as well that that little fact is being ignored, lest the only chance for a vaginal delivery be homebirth (not a universal good choice).<br><br>
What ticks me off is the strong association between the use of meds like pitocin and cytotec, especially cytotec, and uterine rupture. But instead of banning the use of or discouraging the abuse of these, the docs and hospitals focus on VBAC. I thought medicine was Supposed to be SCIENCE BASED. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:
On second thought, maybe it's just as well that that little fact is being ignored, lest the only chance for a vaginal delivery be homebirth (not a universal good choice).<br><br>
What ticks me off is the strong association between the use of meds like pitocin and cytotec, especially cytotec, and uterine rupture. But instead of banning the use of or discouraging the abuse of these, the docs and hospitals focus on VBAC. I thought medicine was Supposed to be SCIENCE BASED. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:
Joined
·
15,484 Posts
The rate is 1.1% For *&%^'s sake!!! Why is that number so huge all of a sudden? What's the rate of maternal mortality? Is it higher than that after cesarean (particular repeat cesarean)? Where's risk management, honestly? I bet they're basing their calculations on the number of 0s after the dollar sign when it comes to settlements and litigation costs versus the number of 0s it takes to section 50% of the women who walk in the door.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!