The intergenerational predisposition to operative delivery
To determine the risk of cesarean delivery for women who themselves were born via operative delivery. A linked data base was constructed between the birth certificates of individuals born in Utah during 1947–1957 (parental cohort) and who subsequently became a parent of offspring born in Utah betwee...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 1996-06, Vol.87 (6), p.905-911 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To determine the risk of cesarean delivery for women who themselves were born via operative delivery.
A linked data base was constructed between the birth certificates of individuals born in Utah during 1947–1957 (parental cohort) and who subsequently became a parent of offspring born in Utah between 1970–1991 (offspring cohort). Parental cohort women (cases) who had been delivered operatively (cesarean delivery, mid- or high forceps) as well as women who had a sibling delivered by an operative procedure were matched (1:2) with parental-cohort women born by spontaneous vaginal delivery (controls). Both cases and controls were selected based on having a record of at least one delivery in Utah during 1970–1991.
Women who were delivered by cesarean were at increased risk of subsequently delivering their children by cesarean (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18–1.70;
P < .001). Progressive risk was associated with parental delivery by mid- or high forceps (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20–2.47;
P = .004), parental cesarean because of cephalo-pelvic disproportion alone (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.16–2.88;
P = .01), or parental cesarean for dysfunctional labor (OR 5.97, 95% CI 1.5–23.6;
P < .001). The attributable risk for cesarean delivery to the contemporary population is 3.5%.
An intergenerational predisposition to cesarean delivery exists. (Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:905–11) |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0029-7844 1873-233X |
DOI: | 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00064-6 |