Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section: Clinical and Legal Perspectives
Vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC) is currently the preferred method of delivery for pregnant women who have undergone I previous low transverse Caesarean section. This common practice warrants some reconsideration in light of recent clinical data on the risks associated with VBAC, and it...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada 2003-10, Vol.25 (10), p.846-852 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 852 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 846 |
container_title | Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Persadie, Richard J. McDonagh, Rory J. |
description | Vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC) is currently the preferred method of delivery for pregnant women who have undergone I previous low transverse Caesarean section. This common practice warrants some reconsideration in light of recent clinical data on the risks associated with VBAC, and it is incumbent upon clinicians to ensure that women under their care are fully aware of these risks. Indeed, in some circumstances, an attempt at VBAC may be perceived by the courts to represent a negligent standard of care.
L’accouchement vaginal après une césarienne (AVAC) est actuellement le mode privilégié d’accouchement pour les femmes enceintes ayant déjà subi une césarienne transversale basse. Des résultats cliniques récents sur les risques liés à l’AVAC imposent un certain réexamen de cette pratique répandue. Il incombe aux médecins de s’assurer que leurs patientes sont pleinement conscientes de ces risques. En fait, dans certaines circonstances, les tribunaux pourraient considérer qu’une tentative d’AVAC constitue une négligence professionnelle. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30675-2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75764511</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1701216316306752</els_id><sourcerecordid>75764511</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ef8b5689c388c304926540dcba01222c26c608b8ecbe8d4ea09b4a58132916bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQQD2AaCn8BFAmBEPAH7HjsKASUUCqBFKB1bKdSzFKk2Knlfj3uLSCkel853d39kPohOBLgom4mpEck5QSwc6JuGBY5Dyle2j4Wx6gwxA-MOY5y4sDNCAZZ7TgbIgmb3ruWt0kt87378m47sEnpYagPeg2mYHtXddeJ2XjWmcjp9sqmcI8np7Bh-Xmfg3hCO3XuglwvIsj9Dq5eykf0unT_WM5nqaW5qJPoZaGC1lYJqVlOCuo4BmurNGYUEotFVZgaSRYA7LKQOPCZJpLEl9LhDFshM62c5e--1xB6NXCBQtNo1voVkHlPBcZJySCfAta34XgoVZL7xbafymC1Uaa-pGmNnZUzH6kKRr7TncLVmYB1V_XzlgEbrYAxG-uHXgVrIPWQuV8lKGqzv2z4hve2Xyu</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>75764511</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section: Clinical and Legal Perspectives</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Persadie, Richard J. ; McDonagh, Rory J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Persadie, Richard J. ; McDonagh, Rory J.</creatorcontrib><description>Vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC) is currently the preferred method of delivery for pregnant women who have undergone I previous low transverse Caesarean section. This common practice warrants some reconsideration in light of recent clinical data on the risks associated with VBAC, and it is incumbent upon clinicians to ensure that women under their care are fully aware of these risks. Indeed, in some circumstances, an attempt at VBAC may be perceived by the courts to represent a negligent standard of care.
L’accouchement vaginal après une césarienne (AVAC) est actuellement le mode privilégié d’accouchement pour les femmes enceintes ayant déjà subi une césarienne transversale basse. Des résultats cliniques récents sur les risques liés à l’AVAC imposent un certain réexamen de cette pratique répandue. Il incombe aux médecins de s’assurer que leurs patientes sont pleinement conscientes de ces risques. En fait, dans certaines circonstances, les tribunaux pourraient considérer qu’une tentative d’AVAC constitue une négligence professionnelle.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1701-2163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30675-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14532953</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Canada ; Female ; Humans ; Incidence ; induction of labour ; Informed Consent ; MEDLINE ; myometrium ; negligence ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Quality of Health Care ; Risk Factors ; Trial of Labor ; ultrasound ; uterine rupture ; Uterine Rupture - epidemiology ; Vaginal birth after Cesarean ; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - ethics ; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><ispartof>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, 2003-10, Vol.25 (10), p.846-852</ispartof><rights>2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ef8b5689c388c304926540dcba01222c26c608b8ecbe8d4ea09b4a58132916bb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ef8b5689c388c304926540dcba01222c26c608b8ecbe8d4ea09b4a58132916bb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14532953$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Persadie, Richard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDonagh, Rory J.</creatorcontrib><title>Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section: Clinical and Legal Perspectives</title><title>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada</title><addtitle>J Obstet Gynaecol Can</addtitle><description>Vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC) is currently the preferred method of delivery for pregnant women who have undergone I previous low transverse Caesarean section. This common practice warrants some reconsideration in light of recent clinical data on the risks associated with VBAC, and it is incumbent upon clinicians to ensure that women under their care are fully aware of these risks. Indeed, in some circumstances, an attempt at VBAC may be perceived by the courts to represent a negligent standard of care.
L’accouchement vaginal après une césarienne (AVAC) est actuellement le mode privilégié d’accouchement pour les femmes enceintes ayant déjà subi une césarienne transversale basse. Des résultats cliniques récents sur les risques liés à l’AVAC imposent un certain réexamen de cette pratique répandue. Il incombe aux médecins de s’assurer que leurs patientes sont pleinement conscientes de ces risques. En fait, dans certaines circonstances, les tribunaux pourraient considérer qu’une tentative d’AVAC constitue une négligence professionnelle.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>induction of labour</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>MEDLINE</subject><subject>myometrium</subject><subject>negligence</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Outcome</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Trial of Labor</subject><subject>ultrasound</subject><subject>uterine rupture</subject><subject>Uterine Rupture - epidemiology</subject><subject>Vaginal birth after Cesarean</subject><subject>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - ethics</subject><subject>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><issn>1701-2163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQQD2AaCn8BFAmBEPAH7HjsKASUUCqBFKB1bKdSzFKk2Knlfj3uLSCkel853d39kPohOBLgom4mpEck5QSwc6JuGBY5Dyle2j4Wx6gwxA-MOY5y4sDNCAZZ7TgbIgmb3ruWt0kt87378m47sEnpYagPeg2mYHtXddeJ2XjWmcjp9sqmcI8np7Bh-Xmfg3hCO3XuglwvIsj9Dq5eykf0unT_WM5nqaW5qJPoZaGC1lYJqVlOCuo4BmurNGYUEotFVZgaSRYA7LKQOPCZJpLEl9LhDFshM62c5e--1xB6NXCBQtNo1voVkHlPBcZJySCfAta34XgoVZL7xbafymC1Uaa-pGmNnZUzH6kKRr7TncLVmYB1V_XzlgEbrYAxG-uHXgVrIPWQuV8lKGqzv2z4hve2Xyu</recordid><startdate>200310</startdate><enddate>200310</enddate><creator>Persadie, Richard J.</creator><creator>McDonagh, Rory J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><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>200310</creationdate><title>Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section: Clinical and Legal Perspectives</title><author>Persadie, Richard J. ; McDonagh, Rory J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c276t-ef8b5689c388c304926540dcba01222c26c608b8ecbe8d4ea09b4a58132916bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>induction of labour</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>MEDLINE</topic><topic>myometrium</topic><topic>negligence</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Outcome</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Trial of Labor</topic><topic>ultrasound</topic><topic>uterine rupture</topic><topic>Uterine Rupture - epidemiology</topic><topic>Vaginal birth after Cesarean</topic><topic>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - ethics</topic><topic>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Persadie, Richard J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDonagh, Rory J.</creatorcontrib><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>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Persadie, Richard J.</au><au>McDonagh, Rory J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section: Clinical and Legal Perspectives</atitle><jtitle>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada</jtitle><addtitle>J Obstet Gynaecol Can</addtitle><date>2003-10</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>846</spage><epage>852</epage><pages>846-852</pages><issn>1701-2163</issn><abstract>Vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC) is currently the preferred method of delivery for pregnant women who have undergone I previous low transverse Caesarean section. This common practice warrants some reconsideration in light of recent clinical data on the risks associated with VBAC, and it is incumbent upon clinicians to ensure that women under their care are fully aware of these risks. Indeed, in some circumstances, an attempt at VBAC may be perceived by the courts to represent a negligent standard of care.
L’accouchement vaginal après une césarienne (AVAC) est actuellement le mode privilégié d’accouchement pour les femmes enceintes ayant déjà subi une césarienne transversale basse. Des résultats cliniques récents sur les risques liés à l’AVAC imposent un certain réexamen de cette pratique répandue. Il incombe aux médecins de s’assurer que leurs patientes sont pleinement conscientes de ces risques. En fait, dans certaines circonstances, les tribunaux pourraient considérer qu’une tentative d’AVAC constitue une négligence professionnelle.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>14532953</pmid><doi>10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30675-2</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1701-2163 |
ispartof | Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, 2003-10, Vol.25 (10), p.846-852 |
issn | 1701-2163 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75764511 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adult Canada Female Humans Incidence induction of labour Informed Consent MEDLINE myometrium negligence Pregnancy Pregnancy Outcome Quality of Health Care Risk Factors Trial of Labor ultrasound uterine rupture Uterine Rupture - epidemiology Vaginal birth after Cesarean Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - ethics Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - legislation & jurisprudence |
title | Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section: Clinical and Legal Perspectives |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T15%3A47%3A44IST&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=Vaginal%20Birth%20After%20Caesarean%20Section:%20Clinical%20and%20Legal%20Perspectives&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology%20Canada&rft.au=Persadie,%20Richard%20J.&rft.date=2003-10&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=846&rft.epage=852&rft.pages=846-852&rft.issn=1701-2163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30675-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E75764511%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=75764511&rft_id=info:pmid/14532953&rft_els_id=S1701216316306752&rfr_iscdi=true |