Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe?
We aimed to evaluate the obstetric outcome of patients without obstetric risks, who had two or more previous caesarean sections (C/S) prior to the current pregnancy, which was managed by caesarean section in our obstetric department. We studied the case notes of 602 women who had a repeat caesarean...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2005-04, Vol.119 (2), p.171-175 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 175 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 171 |
container_title | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology |
container_volume | 119 |
creator | Uygur, Dilek Gun, Ozlem Kelekci, Sefa Ozturk, Arzu Ugur, Mustafa Mungan, Tamer |
description | We aimed to evaluate the obstetric outcome of patients without obstetric risks, who had two or more previous caesarean sections (C/S) prior to the current pregnancy, which was managed by caesarean section in our obstetric department.
We studied the case notes of 602 women who had a repeat caesarean section in our unit between May 2002–June 2003. We then compared the two groups: (1) those who had two or more previous caesarean sections and (2) those who had only one previous caesarean section.
In the study group, while dense intraperitoneal adhesions were present in 3.6% of the patients, they were not found in control group. This difference was statistically significant (
P < 0.05). Uterine wound separation rate was 1.9% in the study group and none of the patients in control group had uterine wound separation, which was statistically significant also (
P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between Apgar scores and number of previous caesarean sections. Postoperative complication rates did not differ between the two groups (
P > 0.05).
Patients without any obstetric risks, with two or more previous caesarean sections had significantly more dense adhesions and uterine wound separations in the current caesarean section compared to patients with one previous caesarean section. But, maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity in women who have two or more previous caesarean sections did not differ from the patients with one previous caesarean section. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.07.022 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67704373</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301211504004269</els_id><sourcerecordid>67704373</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-36a32a5a4f447267c9171a26a2035c2b3a63055bf81198af21531fabb29b2d903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAURYMozjj6D0S60V3rS9IkrQtFBr9gxI2uw2vmVTJ02jHpCP57O0zBnW9zN-deHoexcw4ZB66vVxmtus9QZQIgz8BkIMQBm_LCiNRolR-yKUjgqeBcTdhJjCsYTsrymE24KqCQJp-y7HXb9H7TUBJoQ9gnDiliIGyTSK73XXuT-Jj4PolY090pO6qxiXQ25ox9PD68z5_TxdvTy_x-kTpZQp9KjVKgwrzOcyO0cSU3HIVGAVI5UUnUEpSq6oLzssBacCV5jVUlykosS5AzdrXf3YTua0uxt2sfHTUNttRto9XGQC6NHMB8D7rQxRiotpvg1xh-LAe782RXdu_J7jxZMHbwNNQuxv1ttablX2kUMwCXI4DRYVMHbJ2Pf5zWpigUH7jbPUeDjW9PwUbnqXW09GHwZ5ed__-TX5mchV8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67704373</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Uygur, Dilek ; Gun, Ozlem ; Kelekci, Sefa ; Ozturk, Arzu ; Ugur, Mustafa ; Mungan, Tamer</creator><creatorcontrib>Uygur, Dilek ; Gun, Ozlem ; Kelekci, Sefa ; Ozturk, Arzu ; Ugur, Mustafa ; Mungan, Tamer</creatorcontrib><description>We aimed to evaluate the obstetric outcome of patients without obstetric risks, who had two or more previous caesarean sections (C/S) prior to the current pregnancy, which was managed by caesarean section in our obstetric department.
We studied the case notes of 602 women who had a repeat caesarean section in our unit between May 2002–June 2003. We then compared the two groups: (1) those who had two or more previous caesarean sections and (2) those who had only one previous caesarean section.
In the study group, while dense intraperitoneal adhesions were present in 3.6% of the patients, they were not found in control group. This difference was statistically significant (
P < 0.05). Uterine wound separation rate was 1.9% in the study group and none of the patients in control group had uterine wound separation, which was statistically significant also (
P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between Apgar scores and number of previous caesarean sections. Postoperative complication rates did not differ between the two groups (
P > 0.05).
Patients without any obstetric risks, with two or more previous caesarean sections had significantly more dense adhesions and uterine wound separations in the current caesarean section compared to patients with one previous caesarean section. But, maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity in women who have two or more previous caesarean sections did not differ from the patients with one previous caesarean section.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-2115</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.07.022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15808374</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EOGRAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Shannon: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cesarean Section, Repeat - adverse effects ; Cesarean Section, Repeat - methods ; Female ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Pregnancy ; Previous caesarean ; Sterilization, Tubal - statistics & numerical data ; Surgical sterilisation ; Tissue Adhesions - epidemiology ; Tissue Adhesions - etiology ; Uterine Diseases - epidemiology ; Uterine Diseases - etiology ; Uterine wound separation</subject><ispartof>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology, 2005-04, Vol.119 (2), p.171-175</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-36a32a5a4f447267c9171a26a2035c2b3a63055bf81198af21531fabb29b2d903</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-36a32a5a4f447267c9171a26a2035c2b3a63055bf81198af21531fabb29b2d903</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.07.022$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16678851$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15808374$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Uygur, Dilek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gun, Ozlem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelekci, Sefa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozturk, Arzu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ugur, Mustafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mungan, Tamer</creatorcontrib><title>Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe?</title><title>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</title><addtitle>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</addtitle><description>We aimed to evaluate the obstetric outcome of patients without obstetric risks, who had two or more previous caesarean sections (C/S) prior to the current pregnancy, which was managed by caesarean section in our obstetric department.
We studied the case notes of 602 women who had a repeat caesarean section in our unit between May 2002–June 2003. We then compared the two groups: (1) those who had two or more previous caesarean sections and (2) those who had only one previous caesarean section.
In the study group, while dense intraperitoneal adhesions were present in 3.6% of the patients, they were not found in control group. This difference was statistically significant (
P < 0.05). Uterine wound separation rate was 1.9% in the study group and none of the patients in control group had uterine wound separation, which was statistically significant also (
P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between Apgar scores and number of previous caesarean sections. Postoperative complication rates did not differ between the two groups (
P > 0.05).
Patients without any obstetric risks, with two or more previous caesarean sections had significantly more dense adhesions and uterine wound separations in the current caesarean section compared to patients with one previous caesarean section. But, maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity in women who have two or more previous caesarean sections did not differ from the patients with one previous caesarean section.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cesarean Section, Repeat - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cesarean Section, Repeat - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Previous caesarean</subject><subject>Sterilization, Tubal - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Surgical sterilisation</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - epidemiology</subject><subject>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - etiology</subject><subject>Uterine wound separation</subject><issn>0301-2115</issn><issn>1872-7654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAURYMozjj6D0S60V3rS9IkrQtFBr9gxI2uw2vmVTJ02jHpCP57O0zBnW9zN-deHoexcw4ZB66vVxmtus9QZQIgz8BkIMQBm_LCiNRolR-yKUjgqeBcTdhJjCsYTsrymE24KqCQJp-y7HXb9H7TUBJoQ9gnDiliIGyTSK73XXuT-Jj4PolY090pO6qxiXQ25ox9PD68z5_TxdvTy_x-kTpZQp9KjVKgwrzOcyO0cSU3HIVGAVI5UUnUEpSq6oLzssBacCV5jVUlykosS5AzdrXf3YTua0uxt2sfHTUNttRto9XGQC6NHMB8D7rQxRiotpvg1xh-LAe782RXdu_J7jxZMHbwNNQuxv1ttablX2kUMwCXI4DRYVMHbJ2Pf5zWpigUH7jbPUeDjW9PwUbnqXW09GHwZ5ed__-TX5mchV8</recordid><startdate>20050401</startdate><enddate>20050401</enddate><creator>Uygur, Dilek</creator><creator>Gun, Ozlem</creator><creator>Kelekci, Sefa</creator><creator>Ozturk, Arzu</creator><creator>Ugur, Mustafa</creator><creator>Mungan, Tamer</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050401</creationdate><title>Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe?</title><author>Uygur, Dilek ; Gun, Ozlem ; Kelekci, Sefa ; Ozturk, Arzu ; Ugur, Mustafa ; Mungan, Tamer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-36a32a5a4f447267c9171a26a2035c2b3a63055bf81198af21531fabb29b2d903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cesarean Section, Repeat - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cesarean Section, Repeat - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Previous caesarean</topic><topic>Sterilization, Tubal - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Surgical sterilisation</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - epidemiology</topic><topic>Tissue Adhesions - etiology</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - etiology</topic><topic>Uterine wound separation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Uygur, Dilek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gun, Ozlem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelekci, Sefa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozturk, Arzu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ugur, Mustafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mungan, Tamer</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Uygur, Dilek</au><au>Gun, Ozlem</au><au>Kelekci, Sefa</au><au>Ozturk, Arzu</au><au>Ugur, Mustafa</au><au>Mungan, Tamer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe?</atitle><jtitle>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</addtitle><date>2005-04-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>119</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>171</spage><epage>175</epage><pages>171-175</pages><issn>0301-2115</issn><eissn>1872-7654</eissn><coden>EOGRAL</coden><abstract>We aimed to evaluate the obstetric outcome of patients without obstetric risks, who had two or more previous caesarean sections (C/S) prior to the current pregnancy, which was managed by caesarean section in our obstetric department.
We studied the case notes of 602 women who had a repeat caesarean section in our unit between May 2002–June 2003. We then compared the two groups: (1) those who had two or more previous caesarean sections and (2) those who had only one previous caesarean section.
In the study group, while dense intraperitoneal adhesions were present in 3.6% of the patients, they were not found in control group. This difference was statistically significant (
P < 0.05). Uterine wound separation rate was 1.9% in the study group and none of the patients in control group had uterine wound separation, which was statistically significant also (
P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between Apgar scores and number of previous caesarean sections. Postoperative complication rates did not differ between the two groups (
P > 0.05).
Patients without any obstetric risks, with two or more previous caesarean sections had significantly more dense adhesions and uterine wound separations in the current caesarean section compared to patients with one previous caesarean section. But, maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity in women who have two or more previous caesarean sections did not differ from the patients with one previous caesarean section.</abstract><cop>Shannon</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>15808374</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.07.022</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0301-2115 |
ispartof | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology, 2005-04, Vol.119 (2), p.171-175 |
issn | 0301-2115 1872-7654 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67704373 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Cesarean Section, Repeat - adverse effects Cesarean Section, Repeat - methods Female Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Medical sciences Pregnancy Previous caesarean Sterilization, Tubal - statistics & numerical data Surgical sterilisation Tissue Adhesions - epidemiology Tissue Adhesions - etiology Uterine Diseases - epidemiology Uterine Diseases - etiology Uterine wound separation |
title | Multiple repeat caesarean section: is it safe? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T06%3A43%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multiple%20repeat%20caesarean%20section:%20is%20it%20safe?&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology%20and%20reproductive%20biology&rft.au=Uygur,%20Dilek&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=171&rft.epage=175&rft.pages=171-175&rft.issn=0301-2115&rft.eissn=1872-7654&rft.coden=EOGRAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.07.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67704373%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67704373&rft_id=info:pmid/15808374&rft_els_id=S0301211504004269&rfr_iscdi=true |