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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada 2003-10, Vol.25 (10), p.846-852
Hauptverfasser: Persadie, Richard J., McDonagh, Rory J.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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